Publication summary
55% 429 analyzed articles/videos 307,243 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Columbia Missourian results contain 54 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Appeal to Emotion , and Optimism Bias , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 5.5% saturation with 81,774 hits . Analysis detected 982,632 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,487,731 analyzed words across 426 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.2% and a BS Rank of 13% (331 of 379 publications). This Columbia Missourian is better (less manipulative) than 87.30% of the peer group. Columbia Missourian
Publication details
Total words: 1,487,731
Article count: 426
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
13% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 12.7% percentile 1.2% BS Score426 analyzed articles1.5M 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 5.5% 5.5% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 5.4% 5.4% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 5.3% 5.3% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 2.9% 2.9% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 2.7% 2.7% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 1.7% 1.7% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 1.6% 1.6% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 3.6% 3.6% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Publication 2.4% 2.4% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Publication 1.3% 1.3% 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 5.5%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 5.4%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 5.3%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 2.9%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 2.7%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 3.6%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 1.7%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 1.6%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Publication 2.4%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 4.5%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 2.9%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Publication 2.6%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 1.3%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 1.7%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 2.0%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 1.0%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 2.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst