404 Media⁠48%

Behind the Blog: With Blogs Like These, Who Needs a Private Jet ⁠28%

By Samantha Cole⁠61%

7/3/2026, 3:00:02 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Quote-first Misdirection, and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 26.9% saturation with 47 hits. Analysis detected 280 faulty-reasoning hits from 175 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠28% (15,827 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.30% of the article peer group.

This is Behind the Blog, where we share our behind-the-scenes thoughts about how a few of our top stories of the week came together. 
This week, we discuss the Supreme Court, the private jet, and AI on the TV. 
JOSEPH: I used to cover court cases and judge’s opinions a lot more back at Motherboard. 
Sometimes it was in cases I broke news in, like that time the FBI secretly ran a dark web child abuse website. 
Other times it is big decisions that have wider impacts on privacy, surveillance, and government power. 
Here’s big news regarding the latter sort of decision. 
I first saw news of it on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s blog. 
As it says at the start: “You have an expectation of privacy in location data that reveals your movements in the physical world, and even short-term surveillance of these movements is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. 
Supreme Court ruled today in Chatrie v. 
United States.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 3.0%404 Media: 3.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.6%404 Media: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Samantha Cole: 4.4%404 Media: 3.8%Availability Heuristic12.6%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.5%404 Media: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.7%404 Media: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.2%404 Media: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Samantha Cole: 4.6%404 Media: 5.6%Framing Effect9.1%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.3%404 Media: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.4%404 Media: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.5%404 Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 5.3%404 Media: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 2.5%404 Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Samantha Cole: 16.1%404 Media: 11.5%Negativity Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.0%404 Media: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.1%404 Media: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 3.1%404 Media: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.0%404 Media: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.1%404 Media: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.9%404 Media: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Samantha Cole: 1.7%404 Media: 1.0%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 9.1%Samantha Cole: 0.7%404 Media: 0.3%Primacy Effect9.1%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.1%404 Media: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.6%404 Media: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.4%404 Media: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 26.9%Samantha Cole: 3.5%404 Media: 3.3%Appeal to Authority26.9%This article: 6.9%Samantha Cole: 1.5%404 Media: 1.3%False Dilemma6.9%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 2.0%404 Media: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.2%404 Media: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 11.4%404 Media: 7.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.0%404 Media: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.6%404 Media: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 10.3%404 Media: 4.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.7%404 Media: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.8%404 Media: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.7%404 Media: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.2%404 Media: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.5%404 Media: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.3%404 Media: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.6%Samantha Cole: 3.8%404 Media: 2.9%Anecdotal12.6%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.3%404 Media: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.1%Samantha Cole: 2.5%404 Media: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.1%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.1%404 Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 22.9%Samantha Cole: 2.1%404 Media: 2.6%Unattributed Quote22.9%This article: 22.9%Samantha Cole: 2.1%404 Media: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection22.9%This article: 18.9%Samantha Cole: 14.8%404 Media: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice18.9%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 3.3%404 Media: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.6%404 Media: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.1%404 Media: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.2%404 Media: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

175 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers54%attributed speech81writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJOSEPH • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJOSEPH • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJOSEPH • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageElectronic Frontier Foundation • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words43% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Electronic Frontier Foundation: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Electronic Frontier Foundation: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-40.7 ptsWriter: 40.7%Electronic Frontier Foundation: 0.0%0.0%

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.