NOTUS0%

‘Dark Money’ Group Paid Democrat Janelle Stelson for Disappearing Podcast 33%

By Avani Kalra0%

7/2/2026, 9:27:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Framing Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18.6% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 776 faulty-reasoning hits from 511 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.4% and a BS Rank of 33% (14,746 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.40% of the article peer group.

Janelle Stelson, a former local news anchor who Democrats are hoping will unseat Republican Rep. 
Scott Perry (R-Pennsylvania) this November in one of the nation’s hottest House races, was paid by a “dark money” group to produce a podcast that no longer exists online, federal records show. 
Stelson was paid $45,000 between January 2024 and October 2025 by Voting for America to produce four episodes of “Voices of Central Pennsylvania With Janelle Stelson,” according to her 2025 financial disclosure report. 
Tax records show the organization, which has ties to Democrats, reported less than $50,000 in total income in 2025. 
District of Columbia records show that Voting for America was founded in June 2024 and led by three alumni of the Democratic National Committee and House Democrats’ campaign arm, alongside a political lawyer. 
Mara Kunin, a Democratic operative listed as the organization’s principal on its tax records, did not respond to a request for comment from NOTUS. 
The podcast series appears on only one audio platform, Podchaser, and the four episodes taped by Stelson and published in 2025 are not playable due to an “error in episode file” or an “episode file missing.” 
NOTUS reviewed recordings of the four podcasts provided by the campaign, which were each roughly 20 minutes long and featured interviews by Stelson with people with connections to Pennsylvania who were tackling issues such as Medicaid cuts and job losses among union workers. 
Following the publication of this article, the Stelson campaign agreed to allow NOTUS to publish the podcast audio. 
“As an award winning anchor, Janelle had the opportunity in 2025 to record a short series of podcasts that once again gave her an outlet to uplift her own community and shine a light on the issues that people are facing,” a spokesperson for Stelson’s campaign told NOTUS. 
A person familiar with Stelson’s work on the podcast told NOTUS that she is no longer paying the server’s fee to keep the podcast online. 
The campaign did not answer questions from NOTUS about why Stelson did not list the podcast publicly on a free hosting site such as SoundCloud. 
But the campaign clarified that the podcasts were previously listed on Spotify and Apple. 
Michael Beckel, the director of money in politics at Issue One, a nonpartisan political reform organization, told NOTUS that the circumstances behind the podcast and payment seem murky. 
While Stelson is a respected former news anchor, and it’s not uncommon for a Democratic group to work with someone like her on a podcast series, a lack of information about the funding organization and its spending raises some questions, Beckel said. 
“It’s certainly a stream of revenue that helps her continue to share news with fellow Pennsylvanians, or share information,” Beckel said. 
“But it’s very unclear from public records alone who was behind Voting for America and what types of pet policies they might be pushing for if she’s elected to Congress.” 
This is Stelson’s second bid for Congress after she failed to oust Perry in 2024. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.3%Avani Kalra: 5.2%NOTUS: 2.3%Confirmation Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.9%NOTUS: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Avani Kalra: 4.5%NOTUS: 2.2%Availability Heuristic11.9%This article: 11.9%Avani Kalra: 3.0%NOTUS: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic11.9%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Avani Kalra: 7.7%NOTUS: 6.6%Framing Effect12.3%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%Avani Kalra: 2.3%NOTUS: 3.3%Optimism Bias9.4%This article: 14.1%Avani Kalra: 3.5%NOTUS: 3.0%Pessimism Bias14.1%This article: 18.6%Avani Kalra: 12.6%NOTUS: 10.5%Negativity Bias18.6%This article: 9.4%Avani Kalra: 4.7%NOTUS: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Avani Kalra: 3.0%NOTUS: 1.3%Halo Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Avani Kalra: 1.2%NOTUS: 1.0%Ad Hominem4.9%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.5%Avani Kalra: 5.1%NOTUS: 4.7%Appeal to Authority5.5%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.9%Avani Kalra: 5.0%NOTUS: 4.9%Hasty Generalization5.9%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 3.9%NOTUS: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.5%Avani Kalra: 0.9%NOTUS: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.7%Avani Kalra: 1.2%NOTUS: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.7%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.3%Avani Kalra: 1.6%NOTUS: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.3%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.4%Avani Kalra: 2.8%NOTUS: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection9.4%This article: 11.4%Avani Kalra: 5.4%NOTUS: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice11.4%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 2.1%NOTUS: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Avani Kalra: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

511 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers33%attributed speech342writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageStelson’s campaign spokesperson • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Beckel • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Beckel • 42 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Beckel • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Beckel • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
48 attributed words28% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Stelson’s campaign spokesperson: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+97.1 ptsWriter: 2.9%Stelson’s campaign spokesperson: 100.0%100.0%

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.