Author summary
⁠75%6 analyzed articles/videos3,902 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Matt Novak results contain 49 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Politically Left Leaning Bias, and Ad Hominem, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 22.1% saturation with 3,451 hits. Analysis detected 17,012 faulty-reasoning hits from 15,608 analyzed words across 6 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠50% (4,466 of 8,783 authors). This Matt Novak is better (less manipulative) than 50.80% of the peer group.
Matt Novak
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Hannah Martin1%
⁠0%Paul DeMark1%
⁠0%Emma Sedlak1%
⁠0%Michael Fox1%
⁠0%San Antonio Report Staff1%
⁠50%Matt Novak (selected)3%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 15,608
Article count: 6
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

49% percentile
025507510049.2% percentile
2.2% BS Score6 analyzed articles15.6K 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 2.6%2.6%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Author 22.1%22.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 2.6%2.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 2.9%2.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 11.6%11.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 2.0%2.0%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Author 1.1%1.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Author 1.1%1.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 2.3%2.3%Politically Left Leaning …Sitewide 2.0%Author 6.7%6.7%

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: Author 2.6%, sitewide 26.9%Biased Writer Voice: Author 22.1%, sitewide 5.3%Negativity Bias: Author 11.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 2.6%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 2.9%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 2.0%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 4.6%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Author 1.1%, sitewide 6.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 6.7%, sitewide 2.0%Optimism Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 6.0%Ad Hominem: Author 5.3%, sitewide 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 5.3%, sitewide 2.7%Anecdotal: Author 0.9%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Author 2.7%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 4.0%, sitewide 3.3%Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 3.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 3.1%Recency Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.6%, sitewide 0.8%Loss Aversion: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos