BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Politically Right Leaning Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 40.6% saturation with 224 hits. Analysis detected 2,006 faulty-reasoning hits from 552 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.3% and a BS Rank of 70% (6,210 of 20,496 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.70% of the article peer group.

If the police caught you with child porn or an actual naked child, but you still yearn for a seat on your local school board, the California legislature wants you to live your dream. 
Real headlines in the news this week: 
The effort to ban registered sex offenders from running for office began with a registered sex offender in Fresno proudly announcing his campaign for city council. 
Rene Campos kicked off his campaign with a press conference across the street from a school, forcing Californians to notice that he could run for office. 
Here's his profile on the Megan's Law website: 
Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria, a Democrat who represents Fresno, promptly introduced a bill to bar all registered sex offenders from running for office, and the California Assembly passed AB 2753 in May. 
Sixty legislators voted for the bill in the lower house, and twenty declined to vote, but no one voted against it. 
Then it reached the California Senate, where Scott Wiener chairs the elections committee. 
If you don’t know who Scott Wiener is, this image will begin to tell you how the story ends. 
Wiener, the leading candidate for the seat in the House currently held by the retiring Nancy Pelosi, has a long history of legislating to protect adults who have 'oral and anal intercourse' with minors and expressing pride in California's commitment to the sexual liberation of young children. 
In a committee hearing this week, Wiener steered a maneuver to kill Soria's bill, pronouncing it unfair and dangerous. 
In a democracy, Wiener told an interviewer, people get to run for office, even people with “a lot of flaws.” 
But the same committee did vote to advance a bill from another Democrat in the Assembly, the relentlessly dull-minded Dawn Addis, that also proposed to forbid registered sex offenders from running for office. 
The difference between the bill from Soria that was killed and the bill from Addis that was advanced: The bill from Addis, AB 2691, only covers people added to the sex offender registry for sex crimes against adult victims, explicitly excluding convictions related to sections of the penal code that refer to the sexual assault of minors: 
(B) “Sexual assault” does not include a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 286, subdivision (b) of Section 287, or subdivision (h) or (i) of Section 289 of the Penal Code. 
Greg Burt, a vice president at the California Family Council, spoke as a witness at the hearing and blasted the exclusion of sex crimes against children from Addis’ bill. 
You can watch that testimony in the video excerpt posted by another state legislator: 
Celebrating the death of the bill that would have prevented him from (unsuccessfully) running for office, Campos told journalists that the legislature had delivered a victory for constitutional values: “The First Amendment does not belong to the comfortable.” 
This is at least the third time in recent years that California Democrats have fought to kill a bill that would have harmed the interests of adults who sexually assault minors. 
Here's a headline from 2025 about another bill written by a Democrat: 
It’s becoming a seasonal event in the California legislature, as bills to harm pedophiles appear and Democrats rush to smother them. 
At least they’re not afraid to show what they value. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.0%Chris Bray: 6.7%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias25.0%This article: 2.4%Chris Bray: 1.7%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias2.4%This article: 6.9%Chris Bray: 3.1%The Federalist: 3.4%Availability Heuristic6.9%This article: 9.4%Chris Bray: 1.2%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 1.1%The Federalist: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 25.7%Chris Bray: 13.9%The Federalist: 10.2%Framing Effect25.7%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 1.4%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 2.3%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 40.6%Chris Bray: 19.0%The Federalist: 12.2%Negativity Bias40.6%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Chris Bray: 1.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error3.4%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Chris Bray: 2.7%The Federalist: 4.0%In-Group Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 1.2%The Federalist: 2.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Chris Bray: 0.6%The Federalist: 2.3%Halo Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 1.6%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%Chris Bray: 1.2%The Federalist: 1.2%Recency Bias9.4%This article: 4.7%Chris Bray: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 24.5%Chris Bray: 6.9%The Federalist: 5.2%Ad Hominem24.5%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 4.3%The Federalist: 2.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 2.8%The Federalist: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 14.1%Chris Bray: 3.2%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma14.1%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 1.8%The Federalist: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.6%Chris Bray: 12.7%The Federalist: 11.4%Hasty Generalization15.6%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 35.0%Chris Bray: 9.2%The Federalist: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion35.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 1.1%The Federalist: 3.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.7%Chris Bray: 1.6%The Federalist: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.7%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.5%Chris Bray: 3.5%The Federalist: 2.7%Anecdotal8.5%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.1%Chris Bray: 3.3%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.1%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Chris Bray: 5.6%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 15.2%Chris Bray: 3.9%The Federalist: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection15.2%This article: 37.7%Chris Bray: 30.3%The Federalist: 19.9%Biased Writer Voice37.7%This article: 9.1%Chris Bray: 2.7%The Federalist: 5.4%Indoctrination9.1%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 35.3%Chris Bray: 12.9%The Federalist: 15.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias35.3%This article: 4.0%Chris Bray: 0.4%The Federalist: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.0%

552 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers20%attributed speech439writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageRene Campos • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageScott Wiener • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageGreg Burt • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageRene Campos • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rene Campos

100%flagged-word coverage
64 attributed words57% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Rene Campos: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-47.4 ptsWriter: 47.4%Rene Campos: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -37.8 ptsWriter: 37.8%Rene Campos: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.4 ptsWriter: 11.4%Rene Campos: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%Rene Campos: 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.