LA mayoral debate in tatters as Nithya Raman joins Karen Bass in suddenly pulling out at last minute 52%

By Jamie Paige0%

5/11/2026, 3:31:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and In-Group Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 48.5% saturation with 178 hits. Analysis detected 867 faulty-reasoning hits from 367 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.2% and a BS Rank of 52% (10,578 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.70% of the article peer group.

A Los Angeles mayoral debate has collapsed at the last minute after Nithya Raman joined Karen Bass and Spencer Pratt in pulling out. 
Organizers at the Pat Brown Institute said on Monday the event scheduled for Wednesday was being shelved due to the three major candidates being unavailable. 
Raman revealed early Monday she was not going, following Bass pulling out last week and Pratt earlier saying he had a scheduling conflict. 
It left just businessman Adam Miller and activist Rae Huang. 
A spokesman for the Pat Brown Institute and the League of Women Voters said: “With only two candidates remaining, the event partners have agreed not to proceed.” 
Raman’s campaign told The Post: “We’re disappointed that Mayor Bass cancelled her participation in the debate. 
We welcome opportunities for debates with all the candidates in the future.” 
Bass withdrew late last week saying she was traveling to Sacramento seeking funding tied to homelessness and Palisades fire recovery efforts. 
The left wing duo had faced off with Pratt at last week’s NBC debate, where the reality TV star was widely seen to have wiped the floor with them. 
Raman and Bass also went toe to toe during a smaller town hall debate in front of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association. 
Raman was hauled over the coals over the weekend by her base after she changed her tune towards the city’s cops. 
The councilwoman rose to prominence during the 2020 anti-cop movement, when progressive activists and DSA-backed candidates pushed to slash LAPD funding in the wake of George Floyd. 
But during a CNN interview on Saturday with Jessica Dean, Raman openly shifted her tone on policing. 
“Well, I think we need to be able to respond to calls for help. 
Public safety is incredibly important, and our police force has shrunk significantly,” Raman said. 
The backlash from her activist base exploded almost instantly. 
Anti-police activists, progressive organizers and DSA-aligned accounts accused Raman of abandoning the movement that helped elect her. 
Some blasted the councilwoman for trying to “rebrand” herself as voters grow increasingly angry over disorder and safety concerns across Los Angeles. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 5.3%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Jamie Paige: 5.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic7.9%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.3%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.0%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.5%Jamie Paige: 14.3%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect24.5%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.7%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 48.5%Jamie Paige: 15.8%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias48.5%This article: 7.6%Jamie Paige: 2.6%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 19.9%Jamie Paige: 2.0%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias19.9%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.8%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.2%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 19.3%Jamie Paige: 2.6%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias19.3%This article: 7.4%Jamie Paige: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.5%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.9%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.7%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.5%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.0%Jamie Paige: 8.3%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.9%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.0%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon6.0%This article: 9.8%Jamie Paige: 9.5%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion9.8%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.7%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 3.6%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.6%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.9%Jamie Paige: 4.5%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal7.9%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.2%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.2%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.2%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.7%Jamie Paige: 2.4%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote11.7%This article: 13.4%Jamie Paige: 1.8%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection13.4%This article: 25.3%Jamie Paige: 12.5%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice25.3%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 15.3%Jamie Paige: 0.9%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias15.3%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 4.7%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

367 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers35%attributed speech238writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coveragePat Brown Institute • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coveragePat Brown Institute • 27 words • 100.0% coverageRaman’s campaign • 16 words • 100.0% coverageRaman’s campaign • 12 words • 0.0% coverageKaren Bass • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageNithya Raman • 14 words • 0.0% coverageNithya Raman • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Raman’s campaign

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words22% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote+57.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Raman’s campaign: 57.1%57.1%Biased Writer Voice-39.1 ptsWriter: 39.1%Raman’s campaign: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-23.5 ptsWriter: 23.5%Raman’s campaign: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%Raman’s campaign: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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