Author summary
66%1 analyzed article/video429 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Fiona Harrigan results contain 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Biased Writer Voice, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.3% saturation with 280 hits. Analysis detected 1,465 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,716 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.9% and a BS Rank of 80% (1,769 of 8,706 authors). This Fiona Harrigan is worse (more manipulative) than 79.70% of the peer group.
Fiona Harrigan
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
0%Hannah Martin1%
0%Paul DeMark1%
0%Emma Sedlak1%
0%Michael Fox1%
0%San Antonio Report Staff1%
80%Fiona Harrigan (selected)4%
100%Greg Rosenstein38%
100%Siham Shamalakh43%
100%Greg Miller54%
100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 1,716
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

80% percentile
025507510079.7% percentile
3.9% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.7K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 6.1%6.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 4.8%4.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 3.9%3.9%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Author 1.9%1.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 16.3%16.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 8.2%8.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Author 5.9%5.9%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Author 7.9%7.9%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Author 1.5%1.5%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Author 1.5%1.5%

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: Author 6.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 16.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 4.8%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 8.2%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 7.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 7.6%, sitewide 8.1%Biased Writer Voice: Author 7.9%, sitewide 5.3%Confirmation Bias: Author 3.9%, sitewide 7.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 5.9%, sitewide 3.3%Anecdotal: Author 1.9%, sitewide 5.2%Anchoring Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 3.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 2.2%, sitewide 3.1%Hindsight Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 1.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 1.1%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the Question: Author 0.9%, sitewide 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 1.7%, sitewide 0.8%Indoctrination: Author 1.5%, sitewide 0.0%Middle Ground: Author 1.1%, sitewide 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 0.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos