Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,511 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Riverside City Hall Controversy results contain 39 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Self-Serving Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 8.7% saturation with 527 hits. Analysis detected 4,233 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,044 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠17% (13,821 of 16,562 topics). This Riverside City Hall Controversy is better (less manipulative) than 83.40% of the peer group.
Riverside City Hall Controversy
Topic details
Total words: 6,044
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

17% percentile
025507510016.6% percentile
1.8% BS Score1 analyzed articles6K 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 2.1%2.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 6.8%6.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 4.6%4.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 0.4%0.4%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Topic 8.7%8.7%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.8%2.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.4%1.4%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.9%0.9%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.4%0.4%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.7%1.7%

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 2.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 6.8%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 9.1%Unattributed Quote: Topic 8.7%, sitewide 1.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 6.7%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 6.1%, sitewide 3.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.8%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos