The arithmetic for one report
When anti-Israel rhetoric becomes a political credential
71Moderate density of flagged expressions
What was read
1110 words in the outlet's own voice, plus 7 in the headline. 2% of the text is in quotes, with 1 listed word inside quotes. 3 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): actually
.
Scare quotes (a phrase of one to three words in quotation marks with no speaker in the same sentence): hypnotized the world.
, enormously proud.
, likely Zionists themselves.
, Zionism and apartheid,
, infidels.
. Since method 3.1.0 their words count as the outlet's own.
Words found
- Word choice:
disturbing
2 points Editorializing
The most disturbing result of America’s midterm elections wasn’tpropaganda
3 points Contentious label
I see a pattern: Anti-Israel propaganda presented as human rights advocacy, selectiveclaimed
1 point Expression of doubt
Jewish financial control. She previously claimed Israel had hypnotized the world. Omarterrorists
3 points Contentious label
conspiracy theory suggesting that the terrorists responsible for the December 2025 massacreterrorist
3 points Contentious label
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Al-Qassam terrorist militants and shares those documented operations.propaganda
3 points Contentious label
Americans must challenge conspiracies, scrutinize propaganda , and hold elected officials accountable. - Raises the temperature:
outrage
2 points Raises the temperature
as human rights advocacy, selective outrage masquerading as moral principle, and anti-Jewishsweeping
1 point Raises the temperature
and regional security. El Sayed’s sweeping false accusations of genocide and apartheidoutrage
2 points Raises the temperature
Uyghurs, or Iran’s repression? Selective outrage becomes especially revealing when accompanied by
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 | 15 | 1110 | 13.5 | 25.0 (words 1 to 200) | 19.3 | 0 to 40 | 52 |
| Temperature | 5 | 1110 | 4.5 | 15.0 (words 1 to 200) | 9.8 | 0 to 40 | 76 |
| Flagged attribution phrases | 0 | 1110 | 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 1 to 200 of 1110, with disturbing
, propaganda
; Temperature, words 1 to 200 of 1110, with outrage
, sweeping
.
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 52 + 10)0.4 × (Temperature 76 + 10)0.3 × (Flagged attribution phrases 100 + 10)0.2 × (Headline wording 100 + 10)0.1 − 10 = 71. 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) | 0 |
| Documents cited in the text (a report, bill, ruling, filing) | 0 |
| Checkable specifics (numbers and dates) | 15 |
| 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: c63a7d8329b59059. 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.