Author summary
15% 2 analyzed articles/videos 1,713 analyzed words
BS Summary: These The Ohio Capital Journal results contain 27 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic , Framing Effect , and Appeal to Authority , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 3.7% saturation with 253 hits . Analysis detected 2,330 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,852 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.3% and a BS Rank of 15% (8,084 of 9,471 authors). This The Ohio Capital Journal is better (less manipulative) than 85.40% of the peer group. The Ohio Capital Journal
Author details
Total words: 6,852
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
15% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 14.6% percentile 1.3% BS Score2 analyzed articles6.9K 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 2.5% 2.5% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 3.7% 3.7% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 1.7% 1.7% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 2.4% 2.4% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 0.5% 0.5% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 0.3% 0.3% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.2% 1.2% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 3.1% 3.1% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 1.5% 1.5% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Author 1.1% 1.1% 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 2.5%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 3.7%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 1.7%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 2.4%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 3.1%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 0.5%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Author 0.3%, sitewide 6.7% Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.5%, sitewide 5.3% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 4.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.1%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 1.3%, sitewide 2.5% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 1.8%, sitewide 2.2% Pessimism Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 1.9% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.0% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.6%, sitewide 1.9% Red Herring: Author 1.6%, sitewide 0.7% Genetic Fallacy: Author 0.4%, sitewide 1.4% Hindsight Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 1.4% Indoctrination: Author 1.3%, sitewide 0.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst