Exclusive | Game-changing revelations from Spencer Pratt's event in Nithya Raman's heartland: 'Our city has been destroyed' 74%

By Jamie Paige0%

5/17/2026, 12:13:02 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Anecdotal, and Negativity Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 33.4% saturation with 240 hits. Analysis detected 1,775 faulty-reasoning hits from 718 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.7% and a BS Rank of 74% (5,833 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.40% of the article peer group.

Spencer Pratt invaded his mayoral rival Nithya Raman’s own backyard for an election event that drew hundreds of locals concerned about Los Angeles’ future. 
The former reality TV star turned serious political contender held a meet-and-greet at a supporter’s home in Sherman Oaks Saturday, with many saying they were sick of living in fear in the San Fernando Valley, which has been hit by a string of violent burglaries in recent months. 
Before the event, Pratt fired off a blistering public safety message, accusing city leaders of pointing to falling crime statistics, while ignoring what residents are experiencing on the streets. 
“It’s easy to say crime is down when you simply stop responding to crimes,” Pratt wrote in a social media post. 
And crime was the on the minds of most residents, who lined up to speak to a patient Pratt about their concerns. 
One mother talked about being attacked while shopping with her children. 
Many others described the growing frustration with homelessness and quality-of-life issues. 
The latest Emerson poll ahead of the primary on June 2 found Pratt is now supported of 22% of voters, with Mayor Karen Bass leading on 30% and Nithya Raman on third with 19%. 
One of the strongest messages came from Sana Lahar, a Sherman Oaks mother-of-three who has spent 20 years helping save the lives of children as a cardiac perfusionist. 
“I wanted him to see the face of a mom with three kids,” Lahar said. 
“We’re real and we care about the safety of our children and our families and our community.” 
Lahar’s home was burglarized several years ago, and police took more than an hour to arrive because officers later explained they were severely understaffed. 
“I didn’t feel safe in my own home,” she said. 
She also explained she was shopping with her children at a grocery store one Sunday morning when a thief attempted to steal her purse and pepper sprayed her. 
“I just want to feel safe again,” she said. 
“That’s simply it.” 
Lahar said her concerns are not unique and urged other mothers to speak up about safety concerns affecting families. 
“I think him talking directly to mothers really resonates with voters,” she said. 
“I think it’s important that as mothers we feel heard and seen.” 
The frustration extended beyond parents. 
Tom Glick said he once campaigned for Nithya Raman because he believed her to be a fresh outsider ready to shake up City Hall. 
Now, he says she became exactly what she promised not to be. 
“As soon as she ran, she forgot about the people in the community that campaigned for her.” 
He criticized Raman’s handling of public safety and policing issues. 
“I do not think Nithya Raman takes public safety seriously,” the resident said. 
Public safety has become a central focus of Pratt’s campaign, a message he’s amplified through a series of powerful online videos. 
One portrayed him as a superhero cleaning up Los Angeles and taking on the city’s problems. 
Jenny Leeser said Pratt’s messages have hit home because he was putting words to frustrations many residents have been carrying quietly for years. 
“Because I love the fact that we finally have a candidate who’s speaking the truth and cares for the city,” Leeser said. 
When asked what resonated with her most, she answered immediately. 
“The truth. 
Everything,” she said. 
“Our city has been destroyed.” 
When asked what he would focus on first if elected mayor, Pratt repeatedly returned to one answer: public safety. 
“Public safety,” he said, describing it as a day-one priority. 
The concerns raised Saturday come amid a more complicated citywide backdrop. 
Recent LAPD data shows several violent crime categories trending downward across Los Angeles in 2026, though property crime and burglary concerns continue in some neighborhoods. 
Sherman Oaks and surrounding areas of the San Fernando Valley have had a string of residential and commercial burglaries. 
By the end of the afternoon, the event had become less about a celebrity candidate and more about something many in the room appeared to share: a belief that public safety fears are becoming one of the most powerful forces shaping Los Angeles politics. 
“We need change, our city has suffered way too long,” said Lahar. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.4%Jamie Paige: 5.3%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 33.4%Jamie Paige: 5.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic33.4%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 1.7%Jamie Paige: 0.3%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias1.7%This article: 1.1%Jamie Paige: 2.0%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias1.1%This article: 4.6%Jamie Paige: 14.3%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect4.6%This article: 2.9%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion2.9%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.0%Jamie Paige: 15.8%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias23.0%This article: 1.8%Jamie Paige: 2.6%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias1.8%This article: 5.3%Jamie Paige: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error5.3%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Jamie Paige: 2.0%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Jamie Paige: 1.8%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect9.9%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: 3.5%Jamie Paige: 2.6%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias3.5%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: 8.6%Jamie Paige: 2.9%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority8.6%This article: 4.9%Jamie Paige: 2.7%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma4.9%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.5%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 1.7%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning1.7%This article: 17.1%Jamie Paige: 8.3%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization17.1%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.9%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.1%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon6.1%This article: 33.0%Jamie Paige: 9.5%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion33.0%This article: 0.3%Jamie Paige: 1.7%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.3%This article: 5.7%Jamie Paige: 3.6%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.7%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: 26.7%Jamie Paige: 4.5%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal26.7%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.7%Jamie Paige: 2.2%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.7%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: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.4%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.1%Jamie Paige: 1.8%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection3.1%This article: 19.4%Jamie Paige: 12.5%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice19.4%This article: 2.2%Jamie Paige: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination2.2%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.9%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 4.7%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.9%

718 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers44%attributed speech400writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageEmerson poll • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageSana Lahar • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSana Lahar • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageSana Lahar • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageSana Lahar • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSana Lahar • 3 words • 0.0% coverageSana Lahar • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSana Lahar • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSana Lahar • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageTom Glick • 24 words • 0.0% coverageTom Glick • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTom Glick • 17 words • 0.0% coverageTom Glick • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageJenny Leeser • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJenny Leeser • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJenny Leeser • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJenny Leeser • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJenny Leeser • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageLAPD • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageSana Lahar • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jenny Leeser

100%flagged-word coverage
55 attributed words17% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.8 ptsWriter: 34.8%Jenny Leeser: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+4.8 ptsWriter: 4.3%Jenny Leeser: 9.1%9.1%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%Jenny Leeser: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Jenny Leeser: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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