Publication summary
66% 9 analyzed articles/videos 5,477 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Dallas Observer results contain 45 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Appeal to Emotion , and Appeal to Authority , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 8% saturation with 1,858 hits . Analysis detected 17,498 faulty-reasoning hits from 23,328 analyzed words across 9 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of 41% (243 of 410 publications). This Dallas Observer is better (less manipulative) than 59.20% of the peer group. Publication details
Total words: 23,328
Article count: 9
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
41% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 40.8% percentile 1.7% BS Score9 analyzed articles23.3K 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 8.0% 8.0% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 3.1% 3.1% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 5.4% 5.4% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 4.2% 4.2% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 0.7% 0.7% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 3.4% 3.4% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 3.0% 3.0% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Publication 1.2% 1.2% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Publication 0.6% 0.6% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 4.2% 4.2% 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 8.0%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 3.1%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 5.4%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 4.2%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 3.4%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 3.0%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 4.2%, sitewide 7.5% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 7.2%, sitewide 5.3% In-Group Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Publication 3.9%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 3.3%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Publication 3.2%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 1.2%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 2.6%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 2.8%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.5%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Publication 2.6%, sitewide 0.5% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.7%, 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