We got you something special: The 10th annual Colorado Matters Holiday Extravaganza!⁠95%

By Ryan Warner⁠0% Chandra Thomas Whitfield⁠0%

12/19/2025, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 51.6% saturation with 47 hits. Analysis detected 366 faulty-reasoning hits from 91 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 91.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠95% (1,200 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.50% of the article peer group.

A CPR tradition turns 10 this year. 
The Colorado Matters Holiday Extravaganza began a decade ago — inspired by 1963's Judy Garland Christmas special. 
After a year of relentless news, hundreds of Coloradans forgot their troubles and got happy at the sparkling new Mapleton Arts Center in north Denver. 
Performers included eTown co-host and Bluegrass Hall of Famer Nick Forster of Hot Rize, Denver Nuggets announcer Kyle Speller, the women of Mariachi Las Dahlias, and others. 
Enjoy photos of the event below and cozy up with sounds of the season above. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.4%Colorado Public Radio: 0.4%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 18.7%Ryan Warner: 1.8%Colorado Public Radio: 4.8%Anchoring Bias18.7%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.9%Colorado Public Radio: 6.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 1.6%Colorado Public Radio: 5.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 44.0%Ryan Warner: 4.8%Colorado Public Radio: 26.7%Framing Effect44.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 48.4%Ryan Warner: 4.3%Colorado Public Radio: 5.0%Halo Effect48.4%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 29.7%Ryan Warner: 4.3%Colorado Public Radio: 7.6%In-Group Bias29.7%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 4.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 27.5%Ryan Warner: 4.1%Colorado Public Radio: 19.5%Negativity Bias27.5%This article: 51.6%Ryan Warner: 4.8%Colorado Public Radio: 6.6%Optimism Bias51.6%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.2%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.2%Colorado Public Radio: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 1.8%Colorado Public Radio: 4.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.7%Colorado Public Radio: 2.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.4%Colorado Public Radio: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.3%Colorado Public Radio: 4.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Ryan Warner: 1.4%Colorado Public Radio: 3.3%Status Quo Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.3%Colorado Public Radio: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.7%Colorado Public Radio: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 27.5%Ryan Warner: 2.3%Colorado Public Radio: 3.9%Anecdotal27.5%This article: 48.4%Ryan Warner: 4.1%Colorado Public Radio: 11.3%Appeal to Authority48.4%This article: 44.0%Ryan Warner: 4.3%Colorado Public Radio: 13.0%Appeal to Emotion44.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 27.5%Ryan Warner: 2.3%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%Bandwagon27.5%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.5%Colorado Public Radio: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 1.4%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.1%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 3.4%Colorado Public Radio: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.6%Colorado Public Radio: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 27.5%Ryan Warner: 1.2%Colorado Public Radio: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)27.5%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.2%Colorado Public Radio: 2.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.6%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.5%Colorado Public Radio: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Warner: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%

91 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.