In D.C., a heated race to succeed Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton ⁠73%

By Paul Schwartzman⁠0%

5/26/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 70.4% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 234 faulty-reasoning hits from 71 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (6,077 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.20% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump’s name may not be on the ballot, but he and his Republican allies are Topic A in the heated campaign to succeed Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.’s nonvoting congressional representative who is relinquishing her seat after more than three decades. 
Del. 
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) has decided to retire at the end of her current term. 
(Mark Schiefelbein/AP) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 59.2%Paul Schwartzman: 14.8%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias59.2%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 70.4%Paul Schwartzman: 64.8%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect70.4%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 70.4%Paul Schwartzman: 47.2%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias70.4%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 59.2%Paul Schwartzman: 14.8%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)59.2%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 70.4%Paul Schwartzman: 35.2%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice70.4%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 14.8%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Schwartzman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

71 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers28%attributed speech51writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageEleanor Holmes Norton • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageEleanor Holmes Norton • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMark Schiefelbein • 2 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Eleanor Holmes Norton

0%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words90% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-98.0 ptsWriter: 98.0%Eleanor Holmes Norton: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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