The arithmetic for one report
A massive blue wave just hit America. Here’s what it could bring next.
87Few flagged expressions
What was read
2173 words in the outlet's own voice, plus 13 in the headline. 0% 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): no
. Since method 3.1.0 their words count as the outlet's own.
Words found
- In the headline:
massive
1 point Raises the temperature
A massive blue wave just hit America. Here’s - Word choice:
controversial
1 point Contentious label
harder for him to confirm controversial nominees to administration positions. It wouldarguably
1 point Editorializing
Democrats faced its wrath and arguably far more intense this time. Sixty-two - Raises the temperature:
outrage
2 points Raises the temperature
Trump’s approval cratering, and mounting outrage over gas prices, the war inrebuke
experimental, shown but not counted Raises the temperature
the results were a loud rebuke to those impulses. Taken together, thevery
1 point Raises the temperature
pass certain measures. From the very first votes counted in Indiana andenormous
1 point Raises the temperature
suggested it would likely be enormous — something like a 60-vote edgehugely
1 point Raises the temperature
of the Senate will be hugely important in shaping the final twoshocking
1 point Raises the temperature
one of the night’s most shocking results. But the GOP’s Senate woesbacklash
1 point Raises the temperature
Texas, Gina Hinojosa rode a backlash over data centers to beat Gregbacklash
1 point Raises the temperature
of ICE helped spur a backlash from early on in his secondmassive
1 point Raises the temperature
term that culminated in a massive swing back toward Democrats in keymassive
1 point Raises the temperature
House results. There was a massive surge in Black turnout across theoutrage
2 points Raises the temperature
happy. The scale of voter outrage was the story of the night,rebuke
experimental, shown but not counted Raises the temperature
in comparison now, modest — rebuke in the 2018 and even 2020
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 | 2 | 2173 | 0.9 | 5.0 (words 651 to 850) | 3.0 | 0 to 40 | 93 |
| Temperature | 12 | 2173 | 5.5 | 15.0 (words 1801 to 2000) | 10.3 | 0 to 40 | 74 |
| Flagged attribution phrases | 0 | 2173 | 0.0 | 0.0 (words 1 to 200) | 0.0 | 0 to 20 | 100 |
| Headline wording | 1 | 25 | 40.0 | headline only | 40.0 | 0 to 240 | 83 |
Densest stretch: Word choice, words 651 to 850 of 2173, with controversial
; Temperature, words 1801 to 2000 of 2173, with massive
, outrage
.
Shown, not scored: the headline's rate minus the rate of the story's first 80 words is 76.9 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 93 + 10)0.4 × (Temperature 74 + 10)0.3 × (Flagged attribution phrases 100 + 10)0.2 × (Headline wording 83 + 10)0.1 − 10 = 87. 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: Temperature.
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 | 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) | 25 |
| 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: 09939f9de53f8377. 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.