Author summary
59% 14 analyzed articles/videos 5,873 analyzed words
BS Summary: These The Mercury News results contain 35 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Appeal to Emotion , and Optimism Bias , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 27.3% saturation with 6,192 hits . Analysis detected 20,295 faulty-reasoning hits from 22,657 analyzed words across 14 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.6% and a BS Rank of 59% (3,610 of 8,744 authors). This The Mercury News is worse (more manipulative) than 58.70% of the peer group. The Mercury News
Author details
Total words: 22,657
Article count: 14
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
59% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 58.7% percentile 2.6% BS Score14 analyzed articles22.7K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 0.5% 0.5% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 27.3% 27.3% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 24.1% 24.1% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 1.0% 1.0% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 1.9% 1.9% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.5% 1.5% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.0% 1.0% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.0% 1.0% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 2.6% 2.6% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 10.5% 10.5% 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% Halo Effect: Author 27.3%, sitewide 6.7% Framing Effect: Author 0.5%, sitewide 26.9% Biased Writer Voice: Author 24.1%, sitewide 5.3% Negativity Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 10.5%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 1.9%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.5%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 2.6%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 6.9% Optimism Bias: Author 3.3%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 2.6%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.6%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.0% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.6%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 1.9% Halo Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst