Speaker summary
⁠78%3 analyzed articles/videos96 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Nina Totenberg results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority and Confirmation Bias, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 36.5% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 69 faulty-reasoning hits from 96 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 24% and a BS Rank of ⁠39% (17,419 of 28,364 speakers). This Nina Totenberg is better (less manipulative) than 61.40% of the peer group.
Nina Totenberg
Speaker details
Total words: 96
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

39% percentile
025507510038.6% percentile
24.0% BS Score3 analyzed videos96 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 36.5%36.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 19.8%19.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 15.6%15.6%

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%Halo Effect: Speaker 36.5%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 19.8%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 15.6%, sitewide 7.5%Halo EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos