Topic summary
ā 10%1 analyzed article/video888 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Civilian Oversight results contain 27 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Appeal to Emotion, and Self-Serving Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 6% saturation with 160 hits. Analysis detected 1,409 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,664 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2% and a BS Rank of ā 22% (12,935 of 16,562 topics). This Civilian Oversight is better (less manipulative) than 78.10% of the peer group.
Civilian Oversight
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
ā 0%Uber1%
ā 0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
ā 0%Opera1%
ā 0%Holocaust1%
ā 0%Privacy Policy1%
ā 22%Civilian Oversight (selected)2%
ā 100%Radio Roundup / Week In Review60%
ā 100%E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes60%
ā 100%E Bikes Rad Power Bikes60%
ā 100%The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell69%
ā 100%The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell69%
Topic details
Total words: 2,664
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

22% percentile
025507510021.9% percentile
2.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.7K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0ā€“50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 6.0%6.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 2.8%2.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 4.3%4.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.4%3.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.8%1.8%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.4%1.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.0%1.0%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.2%1.2%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.3%1.3%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.1%1.1%

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 6.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 5.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 2.2%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.8%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Burden of Proof: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the Question: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.5%, sitewide 0.8%Hindsight Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.4%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos