Speaker summary
⁠68%1 analyzed article/video49 analyzed words
BS Summary: These William Barnett results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Anecdotal, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 51% saturation with 25 hits. Analysis detected 171 faulty-reasoning hits from 49 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 49.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠67% (15,080 of 45,124 speakers). This William Barnett is worse (more manipulative) than 66.60% of the peer group.
William Barnett
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠67%William Barnett (selected)50%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 49
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

67% percentile
025507510066.6% percentile
49.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos49 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 51.0%51.0%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 49.0%49.0%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 49.0%49.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 51.0%51.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 51.0%51.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 49.0%49.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 49.0%49.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 51.0%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 51.0%, sitewide 7.5%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 51.0%, sitewide 1.1%Anecdotal: Speaker 49.0%, sitewide 5.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 49.0%, sitewide 15.9%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 49.0%, sitewide 5.3%Negativity Bias: Speaker 49.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos