BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 40.8% saturation with 144 hits. Analysis detected 863 faulty-reasoning hits from 353 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76.2% and a BS Rank of 85% (3,453 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.20% of the article peer group.

You know that feeling you get when you’re watching a movie and the scene is set in a location that should be crowded, yet feels strangely empty? 
It’s occurring more often, and it’s partly a result of higher production costs and tighter budgets. 
But don’t worry, Netflix has a solution to stop that fleeting, inconsequential feeling: AI ! 
A whopping 300 AI-“enhanced” titles, to be exact. 
Co-CEO Ted Sarandos dropped his undeniable embrace of AI in a letter to shareholders before last week’s earnings call . 
One example: Netflix’s new docuseries, “The American Experiment,” includes 17 minutes of AI-modified footage, including crowds and battle scenes. 
“It enabled us to expand the scope in ways that wouldn’t have been feasible before,” Sarandos said. 
“Those 17 minutes were produced twice as fast, at half the cost.” 
Never mind that countless PBS documentaries have had no trouble realistically depicting revolutionary-era America without AI; Netflix is innovating. 
If Letterboxd sells out to Netflix, the people lose 
“Productions would’ve left out those key shots because they wouldn’t have been able to afford them; they wouldn’t have been able to do them in the time frames they’re working on,” Sarandos continued. 
That’s what happens when the content model is to pump out as much as possible, as fast as possible. 
Netflix can afford longer production timelines; they just don’t want to pay up. 
I’d rather see an empty-feeling shot than something filled out by AI  at least the material’s quality could speak for itself. 
In an AI-adjusted version, everything is digitized to uncanny perfection. 
Is that really what viewers want, to not be able to discern reality, even with all its limitations? 
Asking is useless. 
Netflix doesn’t care about their viewer. 
They don’t care about the integrity of their product, or the art of television and filmmaking. 
What they care about is money and manipulation. 
The death of the summer rerun 
There’s more film and television for you to watch than ever before  good luck finding it 
As the Netflix red envelope era ends, here’s what’s really lost to us 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.1%Coleman Spilde: 6.4%Salon: 5.2%Confirmation Bias5.1%This article: 2.3%Coleman Spilde: 0.3%Salon: 0.4%Anchoring Bias2.3%This article: 7.6%Coleman Spilde: 4.0%Salon: 3.3%Availability Heuristic7.6%This article: 5.4%Coleman Spilde: 1.1%Salon: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic5.4%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.7%Salon: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Coleman Spilde: 2.1%Salon: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 3.3%Salon: 7.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 7.9%Coleman Spilde: 0.6%Salon: 0.4%Loss Aversion7.9%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.9%Salon: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.5%Salon: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 2.6%Salon: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.8%Coleman Spilde: 3.0%Salon: 2.2%Pessimism Bias21.8%This article: 23.5%Coleman Spilde: 14.0%Salon: 11.0%Negativity Bias23.5%This article: 8.5%Coleman Spilde: 0.3%Salon: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias8.5%This article: 7.1%Coleman Spilde: 2.0%Salon: 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error7.1%This article: 4.5%Coleman Spilde: 0.8%Salon: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.2%Salon: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.6%Salon: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 6.8%Salon: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.7%Salon: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.0%Salon: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%Coleman Spilde: 1.7%Salon: 1.3%Recency Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.9%Salon: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.5%Salon: 3.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.3%Salon: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 1.8%Salon: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 4.8%Coleman Spilde: 2.5%Salon: 2.3%False Dilemma4.8%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.8%Salon: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.6%Salon: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.5%Coleman Spilde: 12.0%Salon: 10.7%Hasty Generalization10.5%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.3%Salon: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.1%Salon: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 19.8%Coleman Spilde: 5.6%Salon: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion19.8%This article: 0.8%Coleman Spilde: 1.7%Salon: 1.5%Begging the Question0.8%This article: 4.5%Coleman Spilde: 1.3%Salon: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.5%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.0%Salon: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.5%Coleman Spilde: 0.3%Salon: 0.5%Burden of Proof8.5%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.2%Salon: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.9%Salon: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.0%Coleman Spilde: 2.7%Salon: 2.7%Anecdotal13.0%This article: 5.4%Coleman Spilde: 0.2%Salon: 0.1%No True Scotsman5.4%This article: 10.8%Coleman Spilde: 1.5%Salon: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.8%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.0%Salon: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.1%Coleman Spilde: 0.2%Salon: 0.1%Middle Ground5.1%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.2%Salon: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.7%Coleman Spilde: 0.1%Salon: 0.1%Special Pleading3.7%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.3%Salon: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.7%Coleman Spilde: 0.7%Salon: 2.0%Unattributed Quote5.7%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.5%Salon: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 40.8%Coleman Spilde: 21.3%Salon: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice40.8%This article: 8.2%Coleman Spilde: 2.3%Salon: 2.6%Indoctrination8.2%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 2.4%Salon: 6.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Spilde: 0.6%Salon: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

353 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker23%attributed speech271writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTed Sarandos • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageTed Sarandos • 17 words • 0.0% coverageTed Sarandos • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTed Sarandos • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ted Sarandos

24%flagged-word coverage
82 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice-53.1 ptsWriter: 53.1%Ted Sarandos: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+24.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ted Sarandos: 24.4%24.4%Indoctrination-10.7 ptsWriter: 10.7%Ted Sarandos: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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