The arithmetic for one report
Dems won the midterms. How should they work with Trump?
74Moderate density of flagged expressions
What was read
956 words in the outlet's own voice, plus 10 in the headline. 0% of the text is in quotes. 0 attribution markers (such as "said" or "according to") found.
Words found
- Word choice:
actually
1 point Editorializing
. But what can we actually learn from these wins? David Axelrodactually
1 point Editorializing
On Wednesday, Axelrod joined America, Actually for a conversation with host Asteadactually
1 point Editorializing
show, so listen to America, Actually wherever you get your podcasts orobviously
2 points Editorializing
bad. Really, really bad. And obviously it was a repudiation of theactually
1 point Editorializing
I think the country would actually embrace that kind of deal. And - Raises the temperature:
very
1 point Raises the temperature
answer is both. And it’s very tricky to strike that balance. Anddeeply
1 point Raises the temperature
they’re a constituency that is deeply responsive to economic circumstances. They’re gettinghammered
1 point Raises the temperature
to economic circumstances. They’re getting hammered in this economy, as they wereshocking
1 point Raises the temperature
the year. And just generally shocking to the conscience of the Americanvery
1 point Raises the temperature
Hamilton, candidates like that, who very much preached the gospel of the
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 | 6 | 956 | 6.3 | 15.0 (words 1 to 200) | 10.6 | 0 to 40 | 73 |
| Temperature | 5 | 956 | 5.2 | 20.0 (words 751 to 950) | 12.6 | 0 to 40 | 68 |
| Flagged attribution phrases | 0 | 956 | 0.0 | 0.0 (words 1 to 200) | 0.0 | 0 to 20 | not established |
| Headline wording | 0 | 25 | 0.0 | headline only | 0.0 | 0 to 240 | 100 |
Densest stretch: Word choice, words 1 to 200 of 956, with actually
, actually
, actually
; Temperature, words 751 to 950 of 956, with deeply
, hammered
, shocking
, very
.
Attribution is not established: the story's own text has no attribution and no flagged sourcing phrase, so this layer is left out instead of scoring 100.
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 73 + 10)0.4 × (Temperature 68 + 10)0.3 × (Flagged attribution phrases left out)0.2 × (Headline wording 100 + 10)0.1 − 10 = 74. 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
Cites no one. The text read names no source, cites no document and links to no primary record.
| 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) | 4 |
| 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: 361ba5c0cb5187f1. 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.