Publication summary
12% 55 analyzed articles/videos 17,894 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Houston Public Media results contain 52 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Appeal to Emotion , and Appeal to Authority , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 4.9% saturation with 4,866 hits . Analysis detected 52,902 faulty-reasoning hits from 98,394 analyzed words across 55 articles, generating a BS Score of 1% and a BS Rank of 4% (385 of 398 publications). This Houston Public Media is better (less manipulative) than 96.70% of the peer group. Publication details
Total words: 98,394
Article count: 55
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
3% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 3.3% percentile 1.0% BS Score55 analyzed articles98.4K 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 5.0% 5.0% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 4.8% 4.8% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 4.5% 4.5% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 3.5% 3.5% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 2.9% 2.9% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 2.0% 2.0% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 1.6% 1.6% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Publication 1.4% 1.4% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 1.6% 1.6% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Publication 1.1% 1.1% 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 5.0%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 4.8%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 4.5%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 3.5%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 2.9%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 2.0%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 1.6%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 1.6%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Publication 1.4%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 2.4%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Publication 1.4%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 1.2%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 1.7%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.1%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 1.2%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.5%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 2.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst