Speaker summary
⁠44%3 analyzed articles/videos59 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Xinhua results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Framing Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 102 hits. Analysis detected 285 faulty-reasoning hits from 59 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 34.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (13,180 of 28,364 speakers). This Xinhua is worse (more manipulative) than 53.50% of the peer group.
Xinhua
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 59
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

54% percentile
025507510053.5% percentile
34.9% BS Score3 analyzed videos59 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 32.4%32.4%Politically Left Leaning …Sitewide 2.0%Speaker 26.5%26.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 20.6%20.6%Politically Right Leaning…Sitewide 1.4%Speaker 20.6%20.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 26.5%26.5%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 32.4%32.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 20.6%20.6%

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 Authority: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 11.1%Anecdotal: Speaker 32.4%, sitewide 5.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 32.4%, sitewide 26.9%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 26.5%, sitewide 7.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Speaker 26.5%, sitewide 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 20.6%, sitewide 0.8%Negativity Bias: Speaker 20.6%, sitewide 19.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Speaker 20.6%, sitewide 1.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos