Publication summary
11% 30 analyzed articles/videos 7,434 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chicago Tribune results contain 45 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Negativity Bias , and Appeal to Emotion , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 8.4% saturation with 3,243 hits . Analysis detected 28,604 faulty-reasoning hits from 38,658 analyzed words across 30 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of 40% (232 of 383 publications). This Chicago Tribune is better (less manipulative) than 60.50% of the peer group. Publication details
Total words: 38,658
Article count: 30
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
40% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 39.5% percentile 1.6% BS Score30 analyzed articles38.7K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Publication 6.2% 6.2% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 6.3% 6.3% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 6.2% 6.2% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 3.0% 3.0% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 0.7% 0.7% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 3.9% 3.9% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 2.5% 2.5% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 3.2% 3.2% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Publication 0.1% 0.1% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Publication 0.7% 0.7% Sitewide departure map Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often
0.0% 0.0% 10% 10% 20% 20% 30% 30% 40% 40% 50% 50% Framing Effect: Publication 6.2%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 6.3%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 6.2%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 3.0%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 3.9%, sitewide 9.1% Halo Effect: Publication 8.4%, sitewide 6.7% Hasty Generalization: Publication 3.2%, sitewide 8.1% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 7.6%, sitewide 5.3% Confirmation Bias: Publication 2.5%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 6.9% Optimism Bias: Publication 2.4%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Publication 2.0%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 0.1%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 3.4%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 1.5%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Publication 0.1%, sitewide 2.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst