KQED61%

U.S. House of Representatives, District 11 4%

By npiper0%

6/1/2026, 11:02:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Status Quo Bias, Primacy Effect, and False Dilemma, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 22.5% saturation with 27 hits. Analysis detected 116 faulty-reasoning hits from 120 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 16.7% and a BS Rank of 4% (21,177 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 96.80% of the article peer group.

After 39 years representing the city in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi is retiring when her term ends at the end of this year. 
It is the first time no incumbent is running in this district since Pelosi was first elected in 1987. 
This congressional district includes all of San Francisco, except for a small southeastern section left out to balance the total population. 
Representatives are your local community’s voice in the U.S. 
House of Representatives. 
Members of Congress write and vote on bills, including the federal budget. 
The top two finishers in this primary election, regardless of party, will face off in the November election. 
The winner will serve a two-year term. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%npiper: 2.0%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 1.9%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.5%npiper: 12.7%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect22.5%This article: 0.0%npiper: 5.8%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 20.8%npiper: 6.8%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias20.8%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 3.8%CalMatters: 3.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 5.8%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 3.8%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%npiper: 0.8%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 15.8%npiper: 3.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect15.8%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 1.6%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 15.0%npiper: 1.5%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma15.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 5.8%CalMatters: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 3.9%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.5%npiper: 8.4%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion7.5%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 1.9%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 2.6%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.3%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 7.5%npiper: 5.3%CalMatters: 1.9%Indoctrination7.5%This article: 0.0%npiper: 7.8%CalMatters: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 5.4%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

120 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker21%attributed speech95writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Pelosi • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nancy Pelosi

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words100% of attributed speech48% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Indoctrination-9.5 ptsWriter: 9.5%Nancy Pelosi: 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.