Topic summary
⁠69%2 analyzed articles/videos2,195 analyzed words
BS Summary: These City Council Meetings results contain 39 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ad Hominem, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 15% saturation with 988 hits. Analysis detected 6,653 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,585 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠42% (9,659 of 16,562 topics). This City Council Meetings is better (less manipulative) than 58.30% of the peer group.
City Council Meetings
Topic details
Total words: 6,585
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

42% percentile
025507510041.7% percentile
2.6% BS Score2 analyzed articles6.6K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 5.1%5.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 4.4%4.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 15.0%15.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 4.3%4.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.4%0.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.5%1.5%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.9%0.9%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Topic 8.0%8.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.5%0.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 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%Framing Effect: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 14.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 15.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 15.0%, sitewide 5.3%Appeal to Authority: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 7.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 8.1%Ad Hominem: Topic 8.0%, sitewide 2.2%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 7.5%Anecdotal: Topic 7.3%, sitewide 5.2%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 6.0%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.8%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.2%False Dilemma: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 1.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos