BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Anecdotal, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 44.3% saturation with 294 hits. Analysis detected 1,836 faulty-reasoning hits from 663 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.8% and a BS Rank of 88% (2,668 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.80% of the article peer group.

Movies are back to kicking boring TV’s ass 
We’re halfway through the summer and here’s a previously unthinkable proclamation: The movies are back, baby! 
The big screen’s obituary has been written so many times  even by the people who make films. 
TV, everybody long thought, was supposed to be the victorious usurper. 
When “The Sopranos” and “The Wire” were airing on HBO (Home Box Office, lest we forget) in the aughts, viewers said, “Wow, the acting and writing are just as good as in any prestige movie.” 
Of the series “Game of Thrones” and “Lost,” they cooed, “Man, the cinematography and special effects rival the blockbusters I could pay $15 to see at the cinema.” 
Oops. 
That has turned out to be a hugely expensive unforced error. 
Because in 2026 the movies have returned to their previous cultural dominance, while poor TV’s relevance has hit rock bottom. 
Underestimated younger generations are mobbing the multiplex, and the box office is on track to hit $10 billion for the first time since 2019. 
And that’s not just owed to Christopher Nolan’s gargantuan “The Odyssey,” which has grossed a staggering $346 million in its first week of release  54% ahead of “Oppenheimer” at the same point. 
Yes, the Matt Damon mythology epic is top dog in terms of buzz. 
But this year, there has been a steady and varied offering of box-office hits: Dramas and comedies, biopics and animated family fare, originals and IP, science fiction and period romance, Davids and Goliaths. 
Movies  creative and smart ones  are making money again and have wrestled back the conversation. 
There is an unshakable feeling that you’re the odd man out if you miss “Obsession,” the $750,000 independent horror flick directed by a 26-year-old that’s grossed $443 million. 
Everybody was talking about the mind-blowing twist of “The Drama” ($132 million) with Zendaya and Robert Pattinson. 
Critics spewed venom at “Michael,” the Michael Jackson biopic, but it sold $1 billion worth of tickets  the most ever for that genre. 
Controversy is exciting, too. 
The most popular network series is “Tracker” on CBS.​ 
Who cares? 
There’s Taylor Sheridan’s “Yellowstone” followup “Dutton Ranch ,​” which is so huge no one ever mentions it. “The Pitt” has scratched the audience’s itch ​b​y reverting back to “ER” and “24.” 
And, for the pinky-out set, there was Ryan Murphy’s miniseries “Love Story: John F. 
Kennedy Jr. and Carol​yn Bessette.​ 
” So lovely and so over. 
“House of the Dragon” gets strong numbers for HBO, though not​ nearly on the level of the final seasons of “Game of Thrones.” 
And ​i​t’s hardly a talker, perhaps because the whole story’s outcome is a Google search away. 
One of the hottest shows of the year, “Heated Rivalry,” wasn’t nominated because ​n​o American company played ​a part in making it. 
Think about that. 
One of the biggest new series of the year was a low-budget gay hockey romance from<em>&nbsp;Canada</em>. 
For a while, it seemed like cheaper reality TV was going to take the reins. 
Yet the number of unscripted shows on air has dropped by a third since 2022, according to Luminate, a​n​d&nbsp;is continuing to fall​ precipitously. 
There&#8217;s another dying trend. 
By comparison, the next five months of movies are a shining beacon​ of hope. 
“Spider-Man: Brand New Day,” which will gross a guaranteed $1 billion plus, hits theaters next week​end. 
And “Dune: Part Three” and “Avengers: Doomsday” open on the very same day in December. 
And​ it&#8217;s not all franchise tentpoles.​There’s work by major-draw auteurs. 
Films from Alejandro Iñárritu (“The Revenant”), Martin McDonagh (“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”) and Zach Cregger (“Weapons”) are coming in the fall. 
Heck, even DC Studios’​ psychological horror attempt&nbsp;“Clayface” looks pretty good. 
Five years ago, Nicole Kidman got poked fun at for her dreamy, viral AMC ad that played in front of the chain’s movies. 
“We come to his place for magic,” went her optimistic opening line. 
She was right.​&nbsp; 
Meanwhile, we come to TV for news and sports. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.3%Johnny Oleksinski: 14.2%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias17.3%This article: 2.4%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.8%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias2.4%This article: 11.9%Johnny Oleksinski: 8.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic11.9%This article: 5.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 5.2%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 4.8%Johnny Oleksinski: 3.8%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 2.6%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.8%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.3%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.8%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Johnny Oleksinski: 5.5%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias4.5%This article: 3.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 1.0%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias3.0%This article: 5.1%Johnny Oleksinski: 6.1%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.5%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error1.4%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Johnny Oleksinski: 1.5%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias2.4%This article: 3.6%Johnny Oleksinski: 3.1%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.6%This article: 5.3%Johnny Oleksinski: 1.9%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.9%Johnny Oleksinski: 3.0%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias8.9%This article: 3.5%Johnny Oleksinski: 1.2%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect3.5%This article: 4.2%Johnny Oleksinski: 1.4%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.7%Johnny Oleksinski: 4.3%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority9.7%This article: 6.2%Johnny Oleksinski: 3.5%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma6.2%This article: 0.6%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.2%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.6%This article: 2.6%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.9%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning2.6%This article: 11.3%Johnny Oleksinski: 17.3%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization11.3%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 6.3%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon2.0%This article: 9.4%Johnny Oleksinski: 4.9%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion9.4%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.8%Johnny Oleksinski: 3.6%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.8%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.3%Johnny Oleksinski: 2.1%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division6.3%This article: 21.3%Johnny Oleksinski: 10.3%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal21.3%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.3%Johnny Oleksinski: 2.8%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.3%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.1%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.7%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground2.1%This article: 0.3%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.3%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 2.3%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.8%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy2.3%This article: 40.1%Johnny Oleksinski: 13.4%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote40.1%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 44.3%Johnny Oleksinski: 33.8%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice44.3%This article: 5.6%Johnny Oleksinski: 4.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination5.6%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Oleksinski: 0.0%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Johnny Oleksinski: 3.7%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.2%

663 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.0%attributed speech630writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageChristopher Nolan • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Christopher Nolan

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +93.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%Christopher Nolan: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+63.0 ptsWriter: 37.0%Christopher Nolan: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-46.7 ptsWriter: 46.7%Christopher Nolan: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Christopher Nolan: 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.