Speaker summary
⁠99%1 analyzed article/video78 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Campaign for Accountability results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Burden of Proof and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 78 hits. Analysis detected 156 faulty-reasoning hits from 78 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 66.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (8,963 of 45,145 speakers). This Campaign for Accountability is worse (more manipulative) than 80.10% of the peer group.
Campaign for Accountability
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠81%Campaign for Accountability (selected)67%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 78
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

80% percentile
025507510080.1% percentile
66.7% BS Score1 analyzed videos78 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 55.1%55.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 44.9%44.9%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%120%120%Negativity Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 19.2%Burden of Proof: Speaker 55.1%, sitewide 0.4%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 44.9%, sitewide 11.1%Negativity BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos