Karen Bass was out of town for yet another major LA fire ⁠79%

By CA Post Editorial Board⁠99%

6/22/2026, 2:32:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 67.5% saturation with 239 hits. Analysis detected 1,188 faulty-reasoning hits from 354 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠79% (4,634 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.80% of the article peer group.

Karen Bass was out of town for a major fire that affected the entire LA region. 
No, we’re not talking about the Palisades Fire of January 2025, when she was, infamously, in Ghana to represent the Biden administration at a foreign presidential inauguration. 
We’re talking about the Boyle Heights fire, which continues to rage in East LA, and which has spewed black smoke into the summer sky. 
It’s a major international embarrassment, evoking bad memories of LA’s smoggy past, as well as the wildfires last year. 
The fire is burning at a Lineage Logistics warehouse, which happens to be one of the largest cold storage facilities in the country. 
Some 85 million pounds of food will have to be removed and thrown away. 
The city was on notice that the massive facility was at risk, after a similar fire broke out at the warehouse two years ago. 
Both fires seem to have involved a solar panel array on the roof of the warehouse. 
And despite the fact that solar panels are a source of “green” energy, solar panel fires are exceptionally difficult to put out because they keep conducting electricity while ablaze, and they may also contain hazardous materials. 
Mayor Bass has been visible in the firefighting effort, conducting a press briefing over the weekend. 
But she was out of town during part of the emergency, attending the opening of former President Barack Obama’s presidential center in Chicago. 
The Obama center is a giant, ugly Brutalist slab that cost $850 million and that takes up public park space. 
It is a monument to political vanity, and a reminder of the incredible wasted potential of a president who burst onto the political scene urging national unity, yet made our national divisions worse. 
Bass went there to hobnob with fellow politicians and Obama acolytes. 
Meanwhile, the sky above LA filled with toxic smoke. 
This is why Spencer Pratt had a chance, and it is also a reminder of why Bass is vulnerable to a challenge by democratic socialist Nithya Raman. 
Will she ever learn? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.6%CA Post Editorial Board: 13.5%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.9%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic14.4%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.3%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 16.1%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.4%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias16.1%This article: 4.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.6%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias4.0%This article: 24.3%CA Post Editorial Board: 11.7%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect24.3%This article: 4.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.5%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion4.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.7%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias1.1%This article: 67.5%CA Post Editorial Board: 28.0%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias67.5%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.0%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error3.1%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.3%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 2.5%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.1%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.8%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 2.0%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias11.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.2%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%CA Post Editorial Board: 16.6%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem5.6%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 8.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.6%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 6.5%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.3%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma6.5%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.0%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.7%CA Post Editorial Board: 12.9%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization16.7%This article: 7.6%CA Post Editorial Board: 2.1%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring7.6%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 34.7%CA Post Editorial Board: 16.6%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion34.7%This article: 1.1%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.1%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question1.1%This article: 23.7%CA Post Editorial Board: 9.4%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.7%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.8%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.9%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof6.8%This article: 10.2%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.7%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature10.2%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.3%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.1%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.3%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.8%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.1%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.3%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote3.1%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.8%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 42.1%CA Post Editorial Board: 49.2%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice42.1%This article: 1.1%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination1.1%This article: 7.6%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.6%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 28.3%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.6%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

354 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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