Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Public Confrontations results contain 31 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Appeal to Emotion, and Negativity Bias, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 22.1% saturation with 358 hits. Analysis detected 2,200 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,623 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This Public Confrontations is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Public Confrontations
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠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%
⁠0%Public Confrontations (selected)0%
Topic details
Total words: 1,623
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.6K 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 3.1%3.1%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Topic 22.1%22.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 18.1%18.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.8%1.8%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 12.2%12.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.8%2.8%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Topic 5.8%5.8%Politically Right Leaning…Sitewide 1.4%Topic 5.0%5.0%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 1.4%1.4%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.9%0.9%

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%Ad Hominem: Topic 22.1%, sitewide 2.2%Negativity Bias: Topic 12.2%, sitewide 19.2%Hasty Generalization: Topic 18.1%, sitewide 8.1%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 16.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 9.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 8.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 6.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 5.3%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Topic 5.0%, sitewide 1.4%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 4.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.3%, sitewide 3.3%Unattributed Quote: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 2.4%, sitewide 0.8%Bandwagon: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.0%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 1.9%Actor-Observer Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 0.6%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos