Publication summary
14% 60 analyzed articles/videos 38,018 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Houston Chronicle results contain 53 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion , Framing Effect , and Hasty Generalization , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 5.2% saturation with 9,351 hits . Analysis detected 98,776 faulty-reasoning hits from 178,729 analyzed words across 60 articles, generating a BS Score of 1% and a BS Rank of 3% (370 of 379 publications). This Houston Chronicle is better (less manipulative) than 97.60% of the peer group. Publication details
Total words: 178,729
Article count: 60
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
2% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 2.4% percentile 1.0% BS Score60 analyzed articles178.7K 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 4.4% 4.4% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 5.2% 5.2% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 4.7% 4.7% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 3.1% 3.1% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 2.5% 2.5% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 1.1% 1.1% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 3.3% 3.3% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Publication 2.1% 2.1% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 3.0% 3.0% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Publication 1.7% 1.7% 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 4.4%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 5.2%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 4.7%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 3.1%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 2.5%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 3.3%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 3.0%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Publication 2.1%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 1.7%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 2.3%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Publication 2.0%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 1.6%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Publication 0.9%, sitewide 2.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst