Topic summary

⁠95%1 analyzed article/video546 analyzed words

BS Summary: These Supreme Court Nominations results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Halo Effect, and In-Group Bias, with Politically Right Leaning Bias as the most egregious example at 19.2% saturation with 419 hits. Analysis detected 3,732 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,184 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠71% (3,701 of 12,643 topics). This Supreme Court Nominations is worse (more manipulative) than 70.70% of the peer group.

Supreme Court Nominations

Topic ranking list

Percentile	Topic	BS Score
⁠0%	Holocaust	1%
⁠0%	Self-Driving Cars	1%
⁠0%	Self Driving Cars	1%
⁠0%	Survival Stories	1%
⁠0%	Pizza Oven	1%
⁠71%	Supreme Court Nominations (selected)	5%
⁠100%	Radio Roundup / Week In Review	60%
⁠100%	E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes	60%
⁠100%	E Bikes Rad Power Bikes	60%
⁠100%	The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell	69%
⁠100%	The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell	69%

Topic details

Total words: 2,184

Article count: 1

Authors

BlazeTV Staff

Loading chart...

Attribute Prevalence (Top 48)

Supreme Court Nominations attribute prevalence percentages (biases/fallacies), sorted highest to lowest.

Loading chart...

Supreme Court Nominations vs sitewide

Supreme Court Nominations attribute percentages, with an overlaid sitewide baseline for those same attributes.

Analyzed articles and videos

Sort by

John Doyle explains why we’ll end up missing Lindsey Graham⁠^77%

The Blaze⁠^83%By BlazeTV Staff⁠^94%7/15/2026, 11:03:46 PM