Fed's favored inflation gauge remained elevated in February, delayed report shows 18%

By Eric Revell74%

4/9/2026, 12:34:30 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Status Quo Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 20% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 232 faulty-reasoning hits from 265 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.2% and a BS Rank of 18% (18,047 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.50% of the article peer group.

This story about the February 2026 PCE inflation is developing and will be updated with more details. 
The Federal Reserve's preferred inflation gauge remained stubbornly high in February as consumers continued to face elevated price growth. 
The Commerce Department on Thursday reported that the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index rose 0.4% on a monthly basis in February and is up 2.8% from a year ago. 
Both figures were in-line with the expectations of economists polled by LSEG. 
Core PCE, which excludes volatile measurements of food and energy prices, was up 0.4% from a month ago and increased 3% year over year. 
Both figures were in line with economists' expectations from the LSEG poll. 
Federal Reserve policymakers are focusing on the PCE headline figure as they try to bring inflation back to their long-run target of 2%, though they view core data as a better indicator of inflation. 
Compared with January's readings, headline PCE inflation held steady at 2.8%, while core PCE decreased slightly from 3.1%. 
Prices for goods were up 1.2% in February on an annual basis, down from 1.3% in January. 
Goods price growth had slowed over the course of 2025, declining from an annual reading of 4.2% in January 2025 to 0.1% in December. 
Services prices were up 3% from a year ago in February, an increase from the 2.6% reading in January. 
The index was last this high in January 2025, when services prices were up 2.9% on an annual basis. 
This is a developing story. 
Please check back for updates. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.1%Eric Revell: 2.6%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 4.7%FoxBusiness: 3.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.6%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.0%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.0%Eric Revell: 11.0%FoxBusiness: 12.9%Framing Effect20.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 12.8%Eric Revell: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 9.5%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.7%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Eric Revell: 6.9%FoxBusiness: 7.9%Negativity Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 2.5%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.1%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 16.2%Eric Revell: 2.8%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias16.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.1%Eric Revell: 6.7%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority9.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 4.2%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.4%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.9%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 2.1%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.3%Eric Revell: 3.2%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice11.3%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.9%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Eric Revell: 2.8%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.9%

265 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers31%attributed speech183writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Reserve • 19 words • 100.0% coverageCommerce Department • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Reserve • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Federal Reserve

100%flagged-word coverage
53 attributed words65% of attributed speech45% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice+29.8 ptsWriter: 6.0%Federal Reserve: 35.8%35.8%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%Federal Reserve: 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.