BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Status Quo Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 58.8% saturation with 373 hits. Analysis detected 1,828 faulty-reasoning hits from 634 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.5% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,308 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.00% of the article peer group.

When tradition is treated as an inconvenience rather than an inheritance, people drift without an anchor. 
Tradition is not nostalgia but the torch that tells us who we are and what is expected of us 
Which is precisely why the Stanley Cup matters. 
The Cup is not a prop, not a branding opportunity, not a family scrapbook in silver. 
It is the NHL's greatest monument of achievement. 
When NHL champion owner Tom Dundon engraved the names of his wife and five children onto the Stanley Cup, none of whom hold any formal role with the Carolina Hurricanes, he cut against a century-old tradition that defines what the Cup represents - merit, sacrifice, and the people who actually earned their place in history. 
His children, the youngest being seven, contributed nothing to the Hurricanes's championship. 
Their inclusion is not a recognition of effort; it is a display of privilege and arrogance. 
This break from tradition was confirmed by multiple major news organizations, including Yahoo Sports, WRAL in Raleigh, Forbes and AOL's syndicated coverage. 
Each outlet reports the same core facts that the Dundon family occupies the first two lines of the Cup's engraving. 
Their inclusion displaced longtime staff and contributors who traditionally appear on the trophy. 
Such arrogance has sparked widespread criticism for elevating family privilege over the people who actually built the championship. 
The Cup's engravings have always been governed by a simple unwritten code that the names are earned, not gifted. 
Players earn their place through the grind of an 82-game grind of a season and four long playoff rounds. 
Coaches earn it through strategy, leadership, and the pressure of guiding a team through adversity. 
Equipment managers, trainers, scouts and operations staff earn it through years of unseen labor that keeps the machine running. 
Even owners, when listed, are included because they shoulder financial risk and organizational responsibility. 
Moreover, there is a 55-name limit. 
When the first two lines of the Hurricanes's engraving are consumed by the Dundon family, it displaces those who shaped the team's success. 
Bobby Gorman, a longtime equipment manager whose service dates back to the Hartford Whalers era, was left off. 
Joel Nystrom, who played 38 games- nearly half a season-was left off. 
Even the team's minority owners were omitted. 
These are individuals who contributed materially to the Hurricanes's championship run, yet their names were sacrificed for the owner's children. 
That inversion of priorities is precisely what TSN's Eric Macramalla meant when he warned of an "owner-first culture." 
The NHL has always resisted that mentality. 
The sport prides itself on the concept that no one is bigger than the crest on the jersey. 
The Cup's engraving tradition reflects that ethos. 
It is why players are listed before executives. 
It is why support staff are included. 
It is why the Cup has crossed out names in the past when they were added improperly because the integrity of the engraving matters. 
The Dundon engraving sets a troubling precedent. 
The NHL's review process is supposed to prevent this kind of dilution, yet the league approved the Hurricanes' list without comment. 
That silence only reinforces the concern that the Cup's standards are slipping. 
Tradition matters in hockey and the Stanley Cup is at the top of the list. 
When its engravings become a canvas for personal indulgence rather than earned achievement, the meaning of the Cup erodes. 
The Hurricanes won a championship; nothing can take that away. 
However, the decision to place the Dundon family ahead of players, coaches, and staff diminishes the honor that championship represents. 
It is a choice that goes against tradition, against the spirit of the game and against the very purpose of engraving the Cup in the first place. 
Image: Mike from Vancouver, Canada, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons , unaltered. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.4%Greg Maresca: 6.7%American Thinker: 10.6%Confirmation Bias11.4%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Greg Maresca: 2.6%American Thinker: 3.7%Availability Heuristic7.3%This article: 3.0%Greg Maresca: 1.7%American Thinker: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic3.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.5%American Thinker: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 1.4%American Thinker: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Greg Maresca: 6.1%American Thinker: 7.1%Framing Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 1.0%American Thinker: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 15.9%Greg Maresca: 5.7%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias15.9%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.2%American Thinker: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Greg Maresca: 4.1%American Thinker: 2.6%Pessimism Bias10.4%This article: 37.9%Greg Maresca: 12.8%American Thinker: 13.0%Negativity Bias37.9%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.0%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Greg Maresca: 3.2%American Thinker: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error8.7%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Greg Maresca: 1.8%American Thinker: 3.9%In-Group Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 2.6%American Thinker: 5.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Greg Maresca: 0.9%American Thinker: 2.6%Halo Effect1.3%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.5%American Thinker: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Greg Maresca: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.7%Primacy Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.6%American Thinker: 5.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 2.9%American Thinker: 4.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.6%Greg Maresca: 2.5%American Thinker: 4.7%Appeal to Authority7.6%This article: 5.8%Greg Maresca: 3.9%American Thinker: 4.7%False Dilemma5.8%This article: 7.9%Greg Maresca: 3.0%American Thinker: 3.3%Slippery Slope7.9%This article: 1.1%Greg Maresca: 1.0%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning1.1%This article: 14.7%Greg Maresca: 27.3%American Thinker: 16.8%Hasty Generalization14.7%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.8%Greg Maresca: 1.2%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon2.8%This article: 9.3%Greg Maresca: 4.9%American Thinker: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion9.3%This article: 3.8%Greg Maresca: 3.3%American Thinker: 2.7%Begging the Question3.8%This article: 13.4%Greg Maresca: 4.9%American Thinker: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.4%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.0%American Thinker: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 2.8%American Thinker: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.8%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.9%Greg Maresca: 6.2%American Thinker: 3.6%Anecdotal1.9%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 23.0%Greg Maresca: 3.5%American Thinker: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)23.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.1%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.6%Greg Maresca: 1.6%American Thinker: 3.1%Unattributed Quote12.6%This article: 2.8%Greg Maresca: 1.4%American Thinker: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.8%This article: 58.8%Greg Maresca: 21.3%American Thinker: 22.9%Biased Writer Voice58.8%This article: 12.8%Greg Maresca: 4.8%American Thinker: 5.9%Indoctrination12.8%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Maresca: 0.5%American Thinker: 14.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Greg Maresca: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.5%

634 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.8%attributed speech616writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageTSN • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

TSN

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words100% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%TSN: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+89.9 ptsWriter: 10.1%TSN: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-60.6 ptsWriter: 60.6%TSN: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-13.1 ptsWriter: 13.1%TSN: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%TSN: 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.