Speaker summary
⁠100%1 analyzed article/video42 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Adam Gabbatt results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Begging the Question, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 42 hits. Analysis detected 336 faulty-reasoning hits from 42 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠100% (61 of 28,364 speakers). This Adam Gabbatt is worse (more manipulative) than 99.80% of the peer group.
Adam Gabbatt
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 42
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

100% percentile
025507510099.8% percentile
100.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos42 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%120%120%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 15.9%Begging the Question: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 1.7%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 5.3%Framing Effect: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 26.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 8.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 19.2%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos