Speaker summary
⁠78%1 analyzed article/video76 analyzed words
BS Summary: These The New York Post editorial board results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Biased Writer Voice, and Burden of Proof, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 35.5% saturation with 27 hits. Analysis detected 134 faulty-reasoning hits from 76 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 19.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠32% (19,488 of 28,364 speakers). This The New York Post editorial board is better (less manipulative) than 68.70% of the peer group.
The New York Post editorial board
Speaker details
Total words: 76
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

31% percentile
025507510031.3% percentile
19.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos76 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 27.6%27.6%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 27.6%27.6%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 19.7%19.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 35.5%35.5%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 15.8%15.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 7.9%7.9%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 7.9%7.9%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 19.7%19.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 14.5%14.5%

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%Negativity Bias: Speaker 35.5%, sitewide 19.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 27.6%, sitewide 0.8%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 27.6%, sitewide 5.3%Framing Effect: Speaker 19.7%, sitewide 26.9%Burden of Proof: Speaker 19.7%, sitewide 0.4%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 7.9%, sitewide 15.9%Ad Hominem: Speaker 15.8%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 14.5%, sitewide 11.1%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 7.9%, sitewide 0.0%Negativity BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos