Publication summary
33% 16 analyzed articles/videos 5,943 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Cincinnati CityBeat results contain 40 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Attempt to Sell a Product or Service , and Optimism Bias , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 5.2% saturation with 1,604 hits . Analysis detected 13,712 faulty-reasoning hits from 30,603 analyzed words across 16 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.1% and a BS Rank of 32% (379 of 557 publications). This Cincinnati CityBeat is better (less manipulative) than 68.00% of the peer group. Publication details
Total words: 30,603
Article count: 16
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
32% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 32.0% percentile 1.1% BS Score16 analyzed articles30.6K 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 1.6% 1.6% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 0.8% 0.8% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 3.0% 3.0% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 2.4% 2.4% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 1.6% 1.6% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 1.8% 1.8% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 2.4% 2.4% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 1.2% 1.2% Attempt to Sell a Product… Sitewide 0.5% Publication 4.7% 4.7% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Publication 0.6% 0.6% 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 1.6%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 3.0%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 2.4%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 1.6%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 2.4%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 1.8%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 1.2%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Publication 5.2%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 4.4%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 5.1%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Publication 1.3%, sitewide 5.2% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Publication 4.7%, sitewide 0.5% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 0.2%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 0.5%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 1.0%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst