Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video580 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Washington Post Restructuring results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 48.7% saturation with 847 hits. Analysis detected 3,330 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,740 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 8% and a BS Rank of ⁠89% (1,869 of 16,562 topics). This Washington Post Restructuring is worse (more manipulative) than 88.70% of the peer group.
Washington Post Restructuring
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠89%Washington Post Restructuring (selected)8%
⁠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: 1,740
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

89% percentile
025507510088.7% percentile
8.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.7K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 48.7%48.7%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 46.8%46.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 28.7%28.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 0.2%0.2%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Topic 6.6%6.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 2.9%2.9%Horn EffectSitewide 1.0%Topic 4.8%4.8%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 1.2%1.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 3.6%3.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 9.0%9.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Negativity Bias: Topic 48.7%, sitewide 19.2%Framing Effect: Topic 46.8%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 28.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 9.0%, sitewide 11.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 6.2%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 5.5%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 6.7%Ad Hominem: Topic 6.6%, sitewide 2.2%Anecdotal: Topic 5.5%, sitewide 5.2%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 5.3%Anchoring Bias: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 4.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 2.7%Horn Effect: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 1.0%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.6%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 2.2%False Dilemma: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 1.5%Red Herring: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 0.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.3%, sitewide 0.8%Primacy Effect: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 0.9%Negativity BiasSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos