Anti-AI populism is the future of American politics | Garrison Lovely

What was read

1327 words in the outlet's own voice, plus 10 in the headline. 8% of the text is in quotes. 3 attribution markers (such as "said" or "according to") found.

Scare quotes (a phrase of one to three words in quotation marks with no speaker in the same sentence): crucial, let it rip, bossware. Since method 3.1.0 their words count as the outlet's own.

Words found

Word choice: actually 1 point Editorializing
than a one-cycle bump, Democrats actually have to deliver on the accountability
clearly 2 points Editorializing
with Silicon Valley. Tuesday night clearly demonstrated that economic populism is the
Raises the temperature: sweeping 1 point Raises the temperature
night last week. The Democrats’ sweeping midterms victory is a rebuke of
rebuke experimental, shown but not counted Raises the temperature
sweeping midterms victory is a rebuke of Donald Trump , the industry’s
backlash 1 point Raises the temperature
worse . And all the backlash we’ve seen to date emerged in
enormous 1 point Raises the temperature
upside of doing so is enormous – and it’s anyone’s game. When

Layer scores

Rates are counted points per 1,000 words of the story's own text. For a story longer than 200 words, the rate used is the average of the whole-story rate and the rate in its densest 200-word stretch, so neutral filler cannot dilute a loaded passage away. Score = 100 × (loaded end − rate used) ÷ loaded end, kept between 0 and 100. Headline words count only in the headline layer.

Layer	Points	Words	Whole-story rate	Densest 200 words	Rate used	Scale	Score
Word choice	3	1327	2.3	15.0 (words 501 to 700)	8.6	0 to 40	78
Temperature	3	1327	2.3	10.0 (words 151 to 350)	6.1	0 to 40	85
Flagged attribution phrases	0	1327	0.0	0.0 (words 1 to 200)	0.0	0 to 20	100
Headline wording	0	25	0.0	headline only	0.0	0 to 240	100

Densest stretch: Word choice, words 501 to 700 of 1327, with actually, clearly; Temperature, words 151 to 350 of 1327, with backlash, enormous.

Shown, not scored: the headline's rate minus the rate of the story's first 80 words is 0.0 points per 1,000 words. Experimental: 1 of 1 names and figures in the headline also appear in the text read.

Overall

Weighted geometric mean of the layers that are established, with 10 added to each layer first and taken away at the end: (Word choice 78 + 10)^0.4 × (Temperature 85 + 10)^0.3 × (Flagged attribution phrases 100 + 10)^0.2 × (Headline wording 100 + 10)^0.1 − 10 = 86. Adding 10 means one layer at 0 lowers the total steeply without collapsing it. A weak layer pulls the total down.

Lowered the score most: Word choice.

Name-swap test: with party, politician and institution names swapped, this report's score moves by 0.0 points.

The outlet labels this report as opinion, so it does not count toward the outlet's news score.

What a reader could check

People named as sources	0
Unnamed sources	0
Links to primary records (government, court, filings, PDFs)	6 techoversight.org, www.sanders.senate.gov, www.hawley.senate.gov, www.congress.gov, www.hawley.senate.gov, casar.house.gov
Documents cited in the text (a report, bill, ruling, filing)	0
Checkable specifics (numbers and dates)	18
Data shown (a table or chart)	yes
Correction or clarification noted	no

What a reader could check, counted by published patterns. Shown beside the score, never part of it. How each count works

Checked against the official record

No vote count or bill number found in the text read.

Record of this measurement

Method 3.1.0, word-list fingerprint 807a17189402a416, read Mon, Nov 9, 6:14 AM ET by text extractor version 4. Fingerprint of the text read: 568f7c8447a49d2f. Internet Archive copy nearest the time it was read. The text read was not kept (read before method 3.1.0, or from the feed only), so a later rule change can be applied only while the report is still in the outlet's feed.

Dispute this result · Report a missed word

The arithmetic for one report