Publication summary
68% 1 analyzed article/video 953 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Charleston Gazette-Mail results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Appeal to Emotion , and Overconfidence Bias , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 10.9% saturation with 313 hits . Analysis detected 1,809 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,859 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.6% and a BS Rank of 73% (107 of 387 publications). This Charleston Gazette-Mail is worse (more manipulative) than 72.50% of the peer group. Publication details
Total words: 2,859
Article count: 1
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
73% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 72.5% percentile 2.6% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.9K 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 10.9% 10.9% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 6.3% 6.3% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 4.4% 4.4% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 2.3% 2.3% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 2.0% 2.0% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 1.4% 1.4% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Publication 1.0% 1.0% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 3.7% 3.7% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Publication 2.1% 2.1% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Publication 2.9% 2.9% 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 10.9%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 6.3%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 4.4%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 2.3%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 2.0%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 3.7%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 1.4%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Publication 1.0%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 2.9%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Publication 2.1%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 3.8%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 3.3%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 3.8%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 2.3%, sitewide 3.3% Recency Bias: Publication 0.5%, sitewide 2.7% False Dilemma: Publication 2.5%, sitewide 1.5% Politically Right Leaning Bias: Publication 2.5%, sitewide 1.4% Bandwagon: Publication 1.0%, sitewide 2.2% Red Herring: Publication 2.2%, sitewide 0.7% Pessimism Bias: Publication 1.2%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 1.7% Indoctrination: Publication 1.3%, sitewide 0.0% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Publication 0.8%, sitewide 0.8% Composition/Division: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 0.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst