Topic summary
⁠5%1 analyzed article/video835 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Political Misconduct results contain 23 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Anecdotal, and Bandwagon, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 3.9% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 1,008 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,505 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠16% (14,058 of 16,562 topics). This Political Misconduct is better (less manipulative) than 84.90% of the peer group.
Political Misconduct
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠16%Political Misconduct (selected)2%
⁠100%Radio Roundup / Week In Review60%
⁠100%E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%E Bikes Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell69%
Topic details
Total words: 2,505
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

15% percentile
025507510015.1% percentile
1.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.5K 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 3.5%3.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 3.9%3.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 1.0%1.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.0%2.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 0.9%0.9%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.7%2.7%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.8%2.8%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.7%1.7%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Topic 2.2%2.2%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 3.4%3.4%

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: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 7.5%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 5.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.5%, sitewide 3.3%Bandwagon: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.5%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 1.1%Indoctrination: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.9%False Dilemma: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.0%, sitewide 0.8%Burden of Proof: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 0.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos