Branded Content - LA Times Studios89%

1/7/2025, 12:41:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Authority, and In-Group Bias, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 28.7% saturation with 78 hits. Analysis detected 372 faulty-reasoning hits from 272 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 82.7% and a BS Rank of 89% (1,950 of 16,813 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.40% of the article peer group.

AWARD-WINNING BRAND STORYTELLING FROM A WEST-COAST PERSPECTIVE. 
CASE STUDIES 
OUR REACH 
We are the voice of Los Angeles, in large part thanks to our passionate, influential readers who are the driving force behind cultural shifts nationwide. 
combined followers  13 MM 
combined monthly reach  58 MM 
use our platforms to read news content  57% 
Source: LA Times internal data (Jul.–Sep. 2024, three-month average for Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and X) 
weekly print readers  2.6 MM 
Sunday print readers  1.6 MM 
daily print readers  1.2 MM 
Source: Scarborough Los Angeles Metro (R2 2024) 
average monthly unique visitors  47 MM 
average monthly page views  107 MM 
national cross-platform reach  116 MM 
Source: LA Times internal data (Jan. 2025, includes website, e-Newspaper, app, and Apple News) 
OUR AUDIENCE 
advise others on movies to watch  7 MM 
are fans of theatre and live performance  8 MM 
tune in to live TV  23 MM 
self-identify as foodies  7.3 MM 
are interested in cooking  37 MM 
follow vegan diets  9 MM 
are travel enthusiasts  90% 
regularly give travel advice  4 MM 
are likely to be interested in cruises  79% 
are interested in fashion and style  86% 
are style-conscious consumers  5 MM 
are likely to attend fashion events  59% 
Hispanics engage with us every month  11 MM 
Pages views to our site  12 MM 
Multicultural  41% 
Source: Comscore (Oct. 2022, Jan. 2023); Google Analytics (May 2023) 
OUR PARTNERS 
WE'D LOVE TO CHAT WITH YOU! 
Give us the scoop on who you are and what you're working on. 
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
1.8%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Confirmation Bias
10.7%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Framing Effect
16.9%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Halo Effect
28.7%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Horn Effect
0%
In-Group Bias
11.8%
Loss Aversion
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
9.2%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Recency Bias
3.7%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Self-Serving Bias
9.2%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Anecdotal
0%
Appeal to Authority
13.2%
Appeal to Emotion
11.4%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Bandwagon
9.2%
Begging the Question
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Composition/Division
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Hasty Generalization
11%
Middle Ground
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Red Herring
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Straw Man
0%
Tu Quoque
0%

272 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.