Topgolf project should not be allowed on public tidelands ⁠99%

By U T Readers⁠100%

7/23/2026, 5:00:14 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 91.1% saturation with 163 hits. Analysis detected 874 faulty-reasoning hits from 179 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 98.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠99% (415 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 98.10% of the article peer group.

Re “After years of silence, plan for polarizing Topgolf venue on San Diego Bay on path to approval” (July 19): The Topgolf project has no place on our public tidelands. 
Prior developments have converted sandy shorelines to inaccessible riprap and concrete bulwarks, filled in wetlands and degraded the bay’s historical scenic character. 
Topgolf would be the crowning insult by erecting an inappropriate high-end golf facility with 170-foot-tall (17 stories!) 
netting surrounding a 4.5-acre driving range, preventing public access or use. 
This should be an unthinkable use for one of the last portions of public trust lands in North Bay that could be dedicated as a large park with natural habitats, accessible to San Diegans of all incomes. 
The draft environmental impact report does not accurately assess Topgolf’s direct conflicts with the Public Trust Doctrine and Coastal Act. 
It uses selective locations to analyze scenic effects, downplaying Topgolf’s destructive impacts; fails to effectively evaluate its impacts on our bird and wildlife populations; and minimizes traffic concerns. 
— Bill Tippets, La Jolla 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 43.6%U T Readers: 34.3%San Diego Union-Tribune: 3.8%Confirmation Bias43.6%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%U T Readers: 12.3%San Diego Union-Tribune: 3.6%Availability Heuristic12.3%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 5.8%San Diego Union-Tribune: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 25.7%U T Readers: 16.6%San Diego Union-Tribune: 10.5%Framing Effect25.7%This article: 20.7%U T Readers: 23.1%San Diego Union-Tribune: 1.7%Loss Aversion20.7%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 21.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%U T Readers: 4.8%San Diego Union-Tribune: 3.9%Pessimism Bias14.5%This article: 91.1%U T Readers: 44.5%San Diego Union-Tribune: 10.0%Negativity Bias91.1%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 3.2%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 15.6%U T Readers: 5.2%San Diego Union-Tribune: 1.1%Ad Hominem15.6%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.2%U T Readers: 3.7%San Diego Union-Tribune: 4.6%Appeal to Authority11.2%This article: 20.7%U T Readers: 20.7%San Diego Union-Tribune: 3.3%False Dilemma20.7%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 4.1%San Diego Union-Tribune: 1.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 15.5%San Diego Union-Tribune: 3.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 25.1%U T Readers: 19.9%San Diego Union-Tribune: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion25.1%This article: 21.8%U T Readers: 12.8%San Diego Union-Tribune: 1.0%Begging the Question21.8%This article: 12.3%U T Readers: 4.1%San Diego Union-Tribune: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.3%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.7%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 27.9%U T Readers: 13.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 1.0%Burden of Proof27.9%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.1%U T Readers: 2.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 1.3%Anecdotal6.1%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.7%U T Readers: 6.9%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.5%Middle Ground20.7%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.4%U T Readers: 6.1%San Diego Union-Tribune: 2.9%Unattributed Quote18.4%This article: 9.5%U T Readers: 3.2%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection9.5%This article: 79.9%U T Readers: 63.9%San Diego Union-Tribune: 5.8%Biased Writer Voice79.9%This article: 11.2%U T Readers: 24.8%San Diego Union-Tribune: 3.0%Indoctrination11.2%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 8.6%San Diego Union-Tribune: 1.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%U T Readers: 0.0%San Diego Union-Tribune: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

179 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.8%attributed speech174writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageBill Tippets • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bill Tippets

100%flagged-word coverage
5 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+83.9 ptsWriter: 16.1%Bill Tippets: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-82.2 ptsWriter: 82.2%Bill Tippets: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.5 ptsWriter: 11.5%Bill Tippets: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%Bill Tippets: 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.