Publication summary
16% 3 analyzed articles/videos 1,078 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chattanooga Times Free Press results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Biased Writer Voice , and Self-Serving Bias , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 7.5% saturation with 639 hits . Analysis detected 4,895 faulty-reasoning hits from 8,503 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of 38% (250 of 398 publications). This Chattanooga Times Free Press is better (less manipulative) than 62.70% of the peer group. Chattanooga Times Free Press Publication details
Total words: 8,503
Article count: 3
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
37% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 37.3% percentile 1.6% BS Score3 analyzed articles8.5K 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 7.5% 7.5% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 3.2% 3.2% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 7.4% 7.4% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 3.2% 3.2% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 2.1% 2.1% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 0.7% 0.7% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 2.0% 2.0% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Publication 1.2% 1.2% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 1.9% 1.9% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Publication 0.3% 0.3% 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 7.5%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 7.4%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 3.2%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 3.2%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 2.1%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 2.0%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 1.9%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Publication 1.2%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 3.2%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 3.7%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 3.3%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 1.4%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 2.6%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 1.5%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.9%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Publication 0.9%, sitewide 2.0% Representativeness Heuristic: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 1.9% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst