Spencer Pratt’s emotional final plea to change LA  as he shames Bass and Raman in brutal video 64%

By Benjamin Brown0%

5/31/2026, 11:18:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Self-Serving Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 28.7% saturation with 215 hits. Analysis detected 1,615 faulty-reasoning hits from 748 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.6% and a BS Rank of 64% (7,947 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.70% of the article peer group.

With California’s primary election just days away, Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt shamed his Democratic challengers on Sunday by sharing a brutal video of a homeless man next to a ballot drop box  underscoring a problem that current leaders have struggled to solve. 
“I don’t even need to make campaign ads anymore,” Pratt said on X. 
“Karen and Nithya just keep making them for me.” 
“We know what my opponents will do  we’ve lived almost ten years of these two combined,” he said Sunday. 
“If you vote for me, it’s just going to be a mandate to change. 
Enough is enough. 
I’m the one with compassion, no matter what these people tell you. 
“I don’t want people dying on the streets, I don’t want our tax money going to needles, I want to get them in treatment, I want to get them help, I want to help their dogs.” 
“If we change LA we will change the whole state. 
We can’t sit back.” 
The clip shows a man sleeping on the ground with trash littered on top and around the ballot drop box located at Will & Ariel Durant Branch Library in Hollywood. 
Pratt has posted several other times Sunday to attack his Democratic rivals Nithya Raman and Karen Bass over their track record fighting homelessness and the mass exodus of the movie industry. 
The reality TV star even poked fun at himself, saying “the only thing worse than The Hills is Nithya’s campaign.” 
Social media has played a key role in Pratt gaining traction ahead of Tuesday’s primary, but the aspiring politician did acknowledge he “made a mistake” in his campaign that he wishes he could go back and fix. 
“If I could go back in time, I would never have reposted an AI ad,” Pratt told the Wall Street Journal. 
“It’s like, lady, I’m fighting you because you let 12 of my neighbors burn alive. 
That’s dangerous,” Pratt said of Bass, who has condemned the videos. 
“You let seven people die in the street every day. 
That’s dangerous. 
But now I have to defend myself for a video where a tomato hits you?” 
Pratt has shared several now viral AI videos ads throughout the course of his campaign, including one that featured him transforming into a Batman-like superhero taking on Bass who appeared looking like the Joker. 
The mayoral candidate told the outlet he regrets reposting the videos, lamenting that it’s “given my opponents a great way to attack me, which they have not had too many other opportunities to do.” 
With the election just a few days away, candidates are making a last-ditch effort to separate themselves from the pack and encourage people to get out in vote. 
For Pratt, that means hammering issues like homelessness and the city’s affordability crisis  and it seems like the strategy is paying off. 
The reality star has gained significant support in key pockets of Los Angeles, which could spell trouble for Bass, according to a new California Post poll conducted with McLaughlin & Associates released on Friday. 
In the San Fernando Valley, where the media household income is about $92,000, Pratt leads with 39% of the vote, compared to 36% for Bass and 14% for Raman. 
The region includes neighborhoods such as Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Pacoima, Sylmar, Northridge and Reseda. 
Voters there identified homelessness as their most important issue, while Bass faces a crushing 68% job disapproval rating. 
The poll shows a regional breakdown that reveals Pratt is doing the best in areas where dissatisfaction with Bass is the highest. 
Pratt also holds a commanding lead on the Westside, where the median household income is $135,383, and in Harbor-area neighborhoods, where the median household income is $79,436, winning 35% support. 
Bass and Raman are tied at 23% each. 
The area includes Westwood, Marina Del Rey, Mar Vista, Palms, Venice, San Pedro, Wilmington and Harbor Gateway. 
“It’s now or never. 
We have a once-in-lifetime chance to right the ship in LA, but people need to get off the internet and go vote,” Pratt told The Post during a campaign event in Baldwin Village on Saturday. 
“I don’t want to hear anyone complain about druggies or vagrant fires or potholes if they haven’t voted. 
There’s no fate but what we make.” 
Whether people heed that message and show up at the polls Tuesday remains to be seen. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.2%Benjamin Brown: 6.7%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 2.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Benjamin Brown: 5.2%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic12.6%This article: 2.9%Benjamin Brown: 0.5%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.9%This article: 2.8%Benjamin Brown: 0.3%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 1.8%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.4%Benjamin Brown: 14.1%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect16.4%This article: 4.8%Benjamin Brown: 2.1%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion4.8%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.8%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.8%Benjamin Brown: 3.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias14.8%This article: 0.5%Benjamin Brown: 2.7%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.5%This article: 28.7%Benjamin Brown: 20.6%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias28.7%This article: 16.0%Benjamin Brown: 4.3%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias16.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 3.0%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Benjamin Brown: 0.8%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.8%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 1.4%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.6%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.2%Benjamin Brown: 2.4%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias12.2%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.6%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.2%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Benjamin Brown: 2.1%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem2.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.5%Benjamin Brown: 4.5%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority4.5%This article: 7.0%Benjamin Brown: 2.0%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma7.0%This article: 3.7%Benjamin Brown: 0.9%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope3.7%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.8%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.7%Benjamin Brown: 10.1%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization2.7%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 1.3%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.4%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.4%Benjamin Brown: 8.3%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion21.4%This article: 1.9%Benjamin Brown: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question1.9%This article: 11.9%Benjamin Brown: 3.8%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.9%This article: 4.4%Benjamin Brown: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque4.4%This article: 5.7%Benjamin Brown: 1.5%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof5.7%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 5.5%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.7%Benjamin Brown: 2.4%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.7%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.3%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.2%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.6%Benjamin Brown: 1.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading1.6%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 2.5%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.0%Benjamin Brown: 1.4%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 11.5%Benjamin Brown: 12.1%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice11.5%This article: 6.3%Benjamin Brown: 1.1%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination6.3%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.1%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 3.6%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Benjamin Brown: 1.2%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.8%

748 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker42%attributed speech435writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 3 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 12 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 36 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 21 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 15 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 2 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 4 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 35 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 18 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Spencer Pratt

100%flagged-word coverage
313 attributed words100% of attributed speech74% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-19.8 ptsWriter: 19.8%Spencer Pratt: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+15.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Spencer Pratt: 15.0%15.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +6.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Spencer Pratt: 6.7%6.7%Quote-first Misdirection+4.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Spencer Pratt: 4.8%4.8%

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.