The arithmetic for one report
Rubio's defense of Trump's Iran war draws sharp contrast with Vance's midterm blame
72Moderate density of flagged expressions
What was read
1315 words in the outlet's own voice, plus 13 in the headline. 19% of the text is in quotes, with 1 listed word inside quotes. 19 attribution markers (such as "said" or "according to") found.
Listed words inside quotes (not scored; quoting is reporting, but which quotes to use is an editorial choice): shocking
.
Scare quotes (a phrase of one to three words in quotation marks with no speaker in the same sentence): courageous and historic
, AMERICA FIRST
, EVERYONE KNOWS WHY
. Since method 3.1.0 their words count as the outlet's own.
Words found
- Word choice:
courageous
2 points Editorializing
Iran campaign, calling it a courageous and historic effort even as Vanceinsisted
2 points Loaded word for "said"
administration, although the president publicly insisted he intends to keep his Pentagonclearly
attributed to a speaker, not counted Editorializing
the administration needs to more clearly explain its strategic objectives, including whether - Raises the temperature:
devastating
1 point Raises the temperature
blamed the conflict for Republicans' devastating midterm losses, as the White Housedevastating
1 point Raises the temperature
Trump administration and the GOP’s devastating midterm losses could hurt his presidentialepic
1 point Raises the temperature
Trump initially projected that Operation Epic Fury, launched against Iran in February,fury
2 points Raises the temperature
initially projected that Operation Epic Fury , launched against Iran in February, wouldepic
1 point Raises the temperature
the military objectives of Operation Epic Fury, pointing to the destruction offury
2 points Raises the temperature
military objectives of Operation Epic Fury , pointing to the destruction of Iranianscathing
1 point Raises the temperature
without eliminating those capabilities. VANCE'S SCATHING IRAN WAR POSTMORTEM PUTS POTENTIAL 2028 - Attribution phrases:
reportedly
2 points Unnamed source
Some longtime Trump donors are reportedly expressing doubts about backing Vance in
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 | 4 | 1315 | 3.0 | 20.0 (words 751 to 950) | 11.5 | 0 to 40 | 71 |
| Temperature | 9 | 1315 | 6.8 | 20.0 (words 1001 to 1200) | 13.4 | 0 to 40 | 66 |
| Flagged attribution phrases | 2 | 1315 | 1.5 | 10.0 (words 151 to 350) | 5.8 | 0 to 20 | 71 |
| Headline wording | 0 | 25 | 0.0 | headline only | 0.0 | 0 to 240 | 100 |
Densest stretch: Word choice, words 751 to 950 of 1315, with courageous
, insisted
; Temperature, words 1001 to 1200 of 1315, with epic
, fury
, scathing
; Flagged attribution phrases, words 151 to 350 of 1315, with reportedly
.
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.
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 71 + 10)0.4 × (Temperature 66 + 10)0.3 × (Flagged attribution phrases 71 + 10)0.2 × (Headline wording 100 + 10)0.1 − 10 = 72. 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.
What a reader could check
| People named as sources | 1 (Fox News Digital) |
|---|---|
| Unnamed sources | 1 (50% of all sources found) |
| Links to primary records (government, court, filings, PDFs) | 0 |
| Documents cited in the text (a report, bill, ruling, filing) | 0 |
| Checkable specifics (numbers and dates) | 27 |
| Data shown (a table or chart) | no |
| 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 by text extractor version 4. Fingerprint of the text read: 01a3748afde209d9. 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.