Sydney Sweeney did not have permission to climb the Hollywood sign and hang bras66%

By Tracy Brown57% Richard Winton78%

1/26/2026, 4:47:58 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Availability Heuristic, and Self-Serving Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 31.8% saturation with 174 hits. Analysis detected 462 faulty-reasoning hits from 548 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.1% and a BS Rank of 66% (7,467 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.90% of the article peer group.

Well, they do say any attention is good attention. 
Actor Sydney Sweeney was in the spotlight Monday after being captured on video recently scaling the H of the Hollywood sign under the cloak of darkness  to hang up some bras. 
TMZ reported on the footage, which was part of a promotion for Sweeney’s upcoming lingerie line. 
But according to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, the alleged publicity stunt was not authorized. 
The chamber owns the intellectual property rights to the sign, which is managed by the nonprofit Hollywood Sign Trust. 
Neither the chamber nor the trust knew about the apparent Sweeney stunt until they saw the video, officials told The Times. 
"Anyone intending to use and/or access the Hollywood Sign for commercial purposes must obtain a license or permission from the Hollywood Chamber to do so," the chamber’s chief, Steve Nissen, said in a statement. 
"The production involving Sydney Sweeney and the Hollywood Sign, as reported by TMZ, was not authorized by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce nor did we have prior knowledge of it." 
Nissen also said that the organization "did not grant a license or permission of any kind to the production ... nor did anyone seek a license or permission from the Chamber for that production." 
Footage obtained by TMZ shows Sweeney climbing up the Hollywood sign to help string up a clothesline of assorted bras across the familiar landmark. 
The "Christy" star is accompanied by a small crew that is filming her handiwork. 
The team did obtain a general permit to film in the area from FilmLA. 
But as is explained both on the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and Hollywood sign websites, filming the sign itself requires additional clearance and payment of a licensing fee. 
The chamber says a portion of the proceeds goes to a trust that assists in maintaining the Hollywood sign. 
Access to the Hollywood sign is generally restricted. 
So far, a police report that could trigger a trespassing investigation and review by prosecutors has not been filed, according to L.A. Police Officer Tony Im, a department spokesperson. 
Built in 1923, the Hollywood sign was donated to the city 21 years later. 
Climbing or altering the sign is not permitted  though that has happened over the decades. 
Famously, the letters were changed to "Hollyweed" by a local college student on New Year's Day 1976 when California downgraded the possession of a small amount of pot from a possible felony to a misdemeanor. 
That stunt was repeated in 2017. 
In that case, the suspect was arrested on suspicion of trespassing. 
In 1987, Caltech students changed the sign overnight to read "Caltech." 
Last February, a man was arrested after he climbed onto the letter D as part of a social media promotion. 
As for Sweeney, this is not the first time the actor has been scrutinized for promotional activity involving clothing. 
The "Euphoria" star previously faced backlash for the slogan of an ad campaign involving jeans. 
(Sweeney later addressed the controversy, telling the Hollywood Reporter that she was "surprised by the reaction" and that she "[doesn’t] support the views some people chose to connect to the campaign." 
Many have assigned motives and labels to me that just aren’t true.") 
Representatives for Sweeney did not respond to The Times' request for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.1%Tracy Brown: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Tracy Brown: 5.1%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic8.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 3.1%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 4.2%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 3.5%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Tracy Brown: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 7.8%Tracy Brown: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 15.0%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.2%Tracy Brown: 2.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 31.8%Tracy Brown: 6.3%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority31.8%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 3.9%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 9.4%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.5%Tracy Brown: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal17.5%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 15.2%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Brown: 2.4%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

548 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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