Publication summary
8% 29 analyzed articles/videos 15,146 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Tampa Bay Times results contain 51 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion , Framing Effect , and Biased Writer Voice , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 4.2% saturation with 3,237 hits . Analysis detected 38,929 faulty-reasoning hits from 76,875 analyzed words across 29 articles, generating a BS Score of 1% and a BS Rank of 2% (373 of 379 publications). This Tampa Bay Times is better (less manipulative) than 98.40% of the peer group. Publication details
Total words: 76,875
Article count: 29
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
2% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 1.6% percentile 1.0% BS Score29 analyzed articles76.9K 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 3.4% 3.4% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 3.3% 3.3% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 3.7% 3.7% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 2.8% 2.8% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 2.1% 2.1% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 0.3% 0.3% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 1.2% 1.2% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 2.1% 2.1% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Publication 1.4% 1.4% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Publication 1.2% 1.2% 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 3.4%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 3.3%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 3.7%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 2.8%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 2.1%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 2.1%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 1.2%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Publication 4.2%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 2.9%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 3.3%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Publication 1.4%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 1.2%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 1.3%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 0.9%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 1.0%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.1%, sitewide 3.1% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Publication 3.1%, sitewide 0.5% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 1.0%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst