The public demanded data center news, and Wisconsin Watch is delivering 65%

By Tom Kertscher83% Wisconsin Watch11%

7/22/2026, 12:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.9% saturation with 78 hits. Analysis detected 466 faulty-reasoning hits from 313 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.6% and a BS Rank of 65% (7,408 of 21,173 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.00% of the article peer group.

For six months now, Wisconsin Watch has made a concerted effort to report on data centers. 
We’re publishing major stories at WisconsinWatch.org and, each Monday, we provide data center news nuggets in our Forward newsletter ( subscribe here ). 
Here’s a month-by-month summary of what we’ve reported. 
January: Wisconsin Watch revealed that officials in at least four Wisconsin communities (the number has since grown) signed nondisclosure agreements that hid details of billion-dollar data center proposals from the public. 
February: We detailed how a $1 billion data center is being proposed for Grant County in the Driftless Area of southwest Wisconsin. 
March: In a sign of the impact of artificial intelligence data centers, we reported that just three Wisconsin companies have done more than $1 billion in business supplying the facilities. 
We also disclosed more NDAs and other ways local governments have tried to keep data center details secret . 
April: We were the first to report on an official estimate that state government will forgo $2 billion in revenue because of a sales tax exemption for data centers that was adopted in 2023. 
June: We spent months gathering behind-the-scenes details on what happened to the Driftless Area proposal. 
July: We detailed how land sales for the data center under construction in Port Washington turned homeowners and farmers into millionaires and, in some cases, created generation-changing wealth. 
More stories are in the works. 
If you have suggestions for future data center coverage, please let me know: tkertscher@wisconsinwatch.org . 
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. 
Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup. 
The public demanded data center news, and Wisconsin Watch is delivering is a post from Wisconsin Watch , a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. 
Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.6%Tom Kertscher: 2.9%Wisconsin Watch: 2.1%Confirmation Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 3.6%Wisconsin Watch: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Tom Kertscher: 7.6%Wisconsin Watch: 2.2%Availability Heuristic13.1%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Tom Kertscher: 6.2%Wisconsin Watch: 4.1%Framing Effect9.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Tom Kertscher: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 2.6%Optimism Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.9%Tom Kertscher: 17.3%Wisconsin Watch: 5.5%Negativity Bias24.9%This article: 7.3%Tom Kertscher: 2.4%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Tom Kertscher: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 1.8%Halo Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Tom Kertscher: 3.6%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Primacy Effect10.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.1%Tom Kertscher: 4.4%Wisconsin Watch: 3.3%Appeal to Authority13.1%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.8%Tom Kertscher: 6.3%Wisconsin Watch: 2.4%Hasty Generalization18.8%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 1.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 3.0%Wisconsin Watch: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.6%Tom Kertscher: 3.2%Wisconsin Watch: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.1%Tom Kertscher: 2.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.1%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 8.6%Tom Kertscher: 21.2%Wisconsin Watch: 1.5%Biased Writer Voice8.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%Tom Kertscher: 9.4%Wisconsin Watch: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.1%

313 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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