Keyword summary
⁠90%5 analyzed articles/videos1,339 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Laura Ingraham results contain 41 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 11.4% saturation with 698 hits. Analysis detected 8,294 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,128 analyzed words across 5 articles, generating a BS Score of 3.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠71% (17,431 of 58,733 keywords). This Laura Ingraham is worse (more manipulative) than 70.30% of the peer group.
Laura Ingraham
Keyword ranking list
PercentileKeywordBS Score
⁠0%Property Transfers1%
⁠0%Madison Township1%
⁠0%Buc-Ee's Travel Center1%
⁠0%Buc Ees Travel Center1%
⁠0%Paul Demark1%
⁠71%Laura Ingraham (selected)4%
⁠100%Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%Mike Lewis60%
⁠100%Joni Balter60%
⁠100%Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%Bondi Beach Shooting70%
Keyword details
Total words: 6,128
Article count: 5
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed keywords

70% percentile
025507510070.3% percentile
3.3% BS Score5 analyzed articles6.1K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

KeywordSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Keyword 8.0%8.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Keyword 11.3%11.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Keyword 3.5%3.5%Politically Right Leaning…Sitewide 1.4%Keyword 6.6%6.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Keyword 2.5%2.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Keyword 11.3%11.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Keyword 4.5%4.5%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Keyword 6.6%6.6%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Keyword 4.4%4.4%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Keyword 2.2%2.2%

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: Keyword 8.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Keyword 11.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 11.3%, sitewide 15.9%Hasty Generalization: Keyword 11.4%, sitewide 8.1%Appeal to Authority: Keyword 3.5%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Keyword 4.5%, sitewide 9.1%Confirmation Bias: Keyword 2.5%, sitewide 7.5%Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 7.0%, sitewide 5.3%In-Group Bias: Keyword 5.7%, sitewide 6.9%Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 6.6%, sitewide 4.6%Ad Hominem: Keyword 6.6%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Keyword 6.6%, sitewide 1.4%Optimism Bias: Keyword 2.2%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Keyword 2.1%, sitewide 5.2%Indoctrination: Keyword 4.4%, sitewide 0.0%False Dilemma: Keyword 4.4%, sitewide 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Keyword 4.1%, sitewide 3.1%Anchoring Bias: Keyword 1.0%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 1.3%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 2.0%, sitewide 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Keyword 3.0%, sitewide 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Keyword 2.1%, sitewide 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Keyword 2.5%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateKeyword rate

Analyzed articles and videos