Topic summary
49%23 analyzed articles/videos11,860 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Misinformation results contain 54 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 9.2% saturation with 7,094 hits. Analysis detected 67,305 faulty-reasoning hits from 76,799 analyzed words across 23 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of 11% (13,670 of 15,236 topics). This Misinformation is better (less manipulative) than 89.70% of the peer group.

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

10% percentile
025507510010.3% percentile
1.6% BS Score23 analyzed articles76.8K 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 3.9%3.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 4.3%4.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 9.2%9.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.8%0.8%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.8%0.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.6%0.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.8%3.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 6.0%6.0%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.6%0.6%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Topic 0.5%0.5%

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 3.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 9.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 6.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 6.8%, sitewide 5.3%Halo Effect: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 3.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.5%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 3.1%Unattributed Quote: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 2.7%Ad Hominem: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 2.2%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos

Did Trump accidentally declassify proof Russia tried to help him win 2020 election?7%
Snopes.com5%By Anna Rascouët-Paz10%7/23/2026, 11:00:09 AM
‘Get Rid of All the Motors That Are 15 Years Old’: Viral Claim About a Secret Government Engine Policy Has No Evidence Behind It62%
The Daily Dot54%By Sohini42%7/22/2026, 11:51:23 AM
Did Trump confuse 'transistor' with 'transgender' in speech criticizing CHIPS Act? We examined footage48%
Snopes.com5%By Anna Rascouët-Paz10%7/21/2026, 4:00:09 AM
Apple Maps didn't 'erase' Lebanese town names. Here's evidence39%
Snopes.com5%By Taija PerryCook7%7/19/2026, 4:00:09 PM
The Silver Lining of Trump’s Reheated Election Denialism91%
The Bulwark73%By Brian Tyler Cohen0%7/17/2026, 8:45:55 PM
RFK Jr.’s Flawed Claims About Sperm Count and Fertility12%
FactCheck.org3%By Kate Yandell4%7/17/2026, 8:20:45 PM
ICE and DHS’s Growing Record of Deception52%
Mother Jones51%By David Corn58%7/17/2026, 5:30:49 PM
Trump’s Primetime Speech Was a Dud. He Could Still Use it to Interfere in the Midterms.78%
Mother Jones51%By Ari Berman0%7/17/2026, 2:26:23 PM
The Lindsey Graham Conspiracy Theories Are Already Running Wild26%
The Bulwark73%By Will Sommer83%7/13/2026, 11:31:18 PM
Ivermectin isn’t a cancer miracle drug, but influencers claim otherwise – here’s how to avoid sprinting past scientific evidence30%
The Conversation0%By Dannell D. Boatman0%7/8/2026, 12:06:26 PM