NY Post89%

Exclusive | Spencer Pratt says fire at his Pacific Palisades crystals office 'not an accident' as investigation launched 51%

By Jamie Paige0%

6/12/2026, 2:31:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Self-Serving Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 37.8% saturation with 118 hits. Analysis detected 877 faulty-reasoning hits from 312 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.7% and a BS Rank of 51% (10,776 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.80% of the article peer group.

A “suspicious” fire broke out at the Pacific Palisades office of Spencer Pratt's crystals company, he revealed to The California Post. 
The Los Angeles mayoral candidate confirmed that the office, located inside the Highlands Circle complex at 1515 Palisades Dr., belonged to him. 
The Los Angeles Fire Department's Arson Unit was notified, and the cause of the fire remains under investigation. 
“I want to be careful to not compromise an arson investigation, but this incident is very suspicious,” Pratt told The Post, just hours after his bombshell post-election video dropped. 
“I will wait for the investigators to make public the details, but this was no accident, and the timing of this…on the heels of all of the contentious election tomfoolery of the last two weeks, it is very suspect, indeed.” 
The fire broke out on Thursday afternoon and prompted a response from multiple Los Angeles Fire Department units. 
Firefighters were seen battling flames at the property while investigators worked to determine the cause. 
No injuries were immediately reported. 
The office is located in a building that formerly housed the popular Cosa Nostra restaurant. 
The property survived January's Palisades Fire and was undergoing renovations at the time of Thursday's incident. 
“There are many unscrupulous people in this city who will stop at nothing to silence people who expose the corruption that has overrun our city,” Pratt added, thanking the LAFD for their in bringing the blaze under control. 
“This fire was not an accident, and it would not surprise me in the least if this were a reprisal for my work in opposing Karen Bass and Nithya Raman, and having the audacity as a civilian to try and do my civic duty and improve our broken city.” 
The cause of the fire remains under investigation. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 37.8%Jamie Paige: 5.3%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias37.8%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.6%Jamie Paige: 5.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic17.6%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: 5.8%Jamie Paige: 14.3%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect5.8%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%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: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Jamie Paige: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias15.7%This article: 23.7%Jamie Paige: 15.8%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias23.7%This article: 27.9%Jamie Paige: 2.6%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias27.9%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: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.0%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%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: 9.3%Jamie Paige: 2.6%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%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: 12.2%Jamie Paige: 8.3%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization12.2%This article: 4.8%Jamie Paige: 0.9%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring4.8%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.5%Jamie Paige: 9.5%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion21.5%This article: 15.7%Jamie Paige: 1.7%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question15.7%This article: 28.5%Jamie Paige: 3.6%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)28.5%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: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 4.5%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.0%Jamie Paige: 2.2%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.0%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: 6.7%Jamie Paige: 2.4%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote6.7%This article: 5.8%Jamie Paige: 1.8%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.8%This article: 32.1%Jamie Paige: 12.5%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice32.1%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%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: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

312 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers78%attributed speech69writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 21 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 22 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Fire Department • 18 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 29 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 40 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Fire Department • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 38 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 49 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Fire Department • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Spencer Pratt

89%flagged-word coverage
199 attributed words82% of attributed speech48% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.2 ptsWriter: 47.8%Spencer Pratt: 33.7%33.7%Quote-first Misdirection-26.1 ptsWriter: 26.1%Spencer Pratt: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+10.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Spencer Pratt: 10.6%10.6%

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.