Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video795 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Politics With Michelle Grattan results contain 34 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Biased Writer Voice, and Hindsight Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 12.4% saturation with 395 hits. Analysis detected 3,210 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,180 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3% and a BS Rank of ⁠50% (8,293 of 16,562 topics). This Politics With Michelle Grattan is better (less manipulative) than 50.10% of the peer group.
Politics With Michelle Grattan
Topic details
Total words: 3,180
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

50% percentile
025507510049.9% percentile
3.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.2K 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 3.1%3.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 5.4%5.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 3.8%3.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.1%2.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 0.7%0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Topic 8.9%8.9%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Topic 8.4%8.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 12.4%12.4%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.5%0.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 2.7%2.7%

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 3.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 15.9%Confirmation Bias: Topic 12.4%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 9.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 8.9%, sitewide 0.8%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 8.8%, sitewide 5.3%Hindsight Bias: Topic 8.4%, sitewide 1.4%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 8.1%In-Group Bias: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 3.7%Ad Hominem: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 3.4%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 2.7%False Dilemma: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 1.5%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos