Speaker summary
55% 187 analyzed articles/videos 5,394.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These The New York Times results contain 40 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Appeal to Emotion , and Post Hoc (False Cause) , with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 16.1% saturation with 1,114.102 hits . Analysis detected 8,571.064 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,394.667 analyzed words across 187 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.9% and a BS Rank of 1% (25,756 of 25,915 speakers). This The New York Times is better (less manipulative) than 99.40% of the peer group. The New York Times
Speaker details
Total words: 5,394.667
Article count: 187
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed speakers
1% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 0.6% percentile 2.9% BS Score187 analyzed videos5.4K 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% Speaker 11.9% 11.9% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Speaker 8.2% 8.2% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Speaker 5.7% 5.7% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Speaker 0.2% 0.2% Unattributed Quote Sitewide 1.1% Speaker 7.2% 7.2% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Speaker 2.4% 2.4% Quote-first Misdirection Sitewide 0.0% Speaker 5.4% 5.4% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Speaker 1.3% 1.3% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Speaker 16.1% 16.1% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Speaker 1.4% 1.4% 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: Speaker 11.9%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Speaker 8.2%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Authority: Speaker 16.1%, sitewide 11.1% Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 5.7%, sitewide 15.9% Availability Heuristic: Speaker 6.5%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Speaker 2.4%, sitewide 8.1% Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 7.6%, sitewide 3.3% Confirmation Bias: Speaker 7.1%, sitewide 7.5% Unattributed Quote: Speaker 7.2%, sitewide 1.1% In-Group Bias: Speaker 0.2%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Speaker 1.3%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Speaker 1.4%, sitewide 6.0% Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 5.4%, sitewide 0.0% Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 2.6%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Speaker 3.0%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 1.9%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Speaker 0.9%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 3.4%, sitewide 3.7% Recency Bias: Speaker 3.0%, sitewide 2.7% Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 0.7%, sitewide 2.7% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Speaker 2.6%, sitewide 2.0% Loss Aversion: Speaker 1.2%, sitewide 2.5% Straw Man: Speaker 2.4%, sitewide 0.9% Status Quo Bias: Speaker 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Speaker rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst