Publication summary
42% 96 analyzed articles/videos 63,755 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Inquirer.com results contain 54 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Biased Writer Voice , and Halo Effect , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 5.3% saturation with 15,207 hits . Analysis detected 153,364 faulty-reasoning hits from 284,508 analyzed words across 96 articles, generating a BS Score of 1% and a BS Rank of 25% (425 of 564 publications). This Inquirer.com is better (less manipulative) than 75.30% of the peer group. Inquirer.com
Publication details
Total words: 284,508
Article count: 96
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
25% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 24.7% percentile 1.0% BS Score96 analyzed articles284.5K 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% Publication 3.9% 3.9% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 5.3% 5.3% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 2.9% 2.9% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 1.8% 1.8% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 2.2% 2.2% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 1.0% 1.0% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 2.2% 2.2% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 2.8% 2.8% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Publication 2.2% 2.2% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Publication 0.8% 0.8% 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: Publication 3.9%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 5.3%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 2.9%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 1.8%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 2.2%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 2.8%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 2.2%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 1.0%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Publication 3.1%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 2.2%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 3.8%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Publication 1.8%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 1.2%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 1.6%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.5%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 2.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst