With ‘Antony and Cleopatra,’ S.F. Shakes explores history’s ultimate power couple 56%

By Lily Janiak0%

7/16/2026, 1:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Quote-first Misdirection, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 51.9% saturation with 107 hits. Analysis detected 719 faulty-reasoning hits from 206 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.2% and a BS Rank of 56% (9,809 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.20% of the article peer group.

DATEBOOK PICK 
She’s the queen of Egypt. 
He’s a Roman general. 
They’re equals in lust for both sex and power, and they’re both cunning strategists regularly undone by throes of passion. 
What could go wrong? 
Shakespeare’s “Antony and Cleopatra” begins with history’s ultimate power couple fawning over each other, with such PDA even their entourage cringes. 
By the end of the tragedy, geopolitics has so upset their bed that each is pledging suicide over the presumed loss of the other. 
In between, morsels abound. 
Here’s how Cleopatra plans to win back a distracted boyfriend: “If you find him sad, say I am dancing; if in mirth, report that I am sudden sick.” 
Or he she is pining for him, in words a jilted lover of any era might relate to: “Where think’st thou he is now? 
Stands he, or sits he? 
Or does he walk? 
Or is he on his horse? 
O happy horse, to bear the weight of Antony!” 
For San Francisco Shakespeare Festival  which mounts free theater in Bay Area parks every summer  Elizabeth Carter plays Cleopatra, while Jeremy Ohta Lee is Antony. 
Katja Rivera directs the history-rocking tragic love story. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Lily Janiak: 0.2%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.2%Availability Heuristic1.0%This article: 11.7%Lily Janiak: 8.3%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic11.7%This article: 11.7%Lily Janiak: 6.3%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Hindsight Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 51.9%Lily Janiak: 29.2%San Francisco Chronicle: 5.5%Framing Effect51.9%This article: 11.7%Lily Janiak: 2.9%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.6%Loss Aversion11.7%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Lily Janiak: 0.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.8%Optimism Bias1.9%This article: 13.6%Lily Janiak: 3.4%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Pessimism Bias13.6%This article: 21.8%Lily Janiak: 5.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 6.4%Negativity Bias21.8%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Lily Janiak: 1.7%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.2%Halo Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Lily Janiak: 2.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Primacy Effect10.2%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.1%Lily Janiak: 3.3%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.7%Appeal to Authority13.1%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.4%Lily Janiak: 13.6%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.9%Hasty Generalization21.4%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.2%Lily Janiak: 8.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.1%Appeal to Emotion10.2%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.7%Lily Janiak: 2.9%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.7%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.2%Lily Janiak: 2.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.1%Anecdotal10.2%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 35.0%Lily Janiak: 8.7%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)35.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 25.2%Lily Janiak: 6.3%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Unattributed Quote25.2%This article: 26.2%Lily Janiak: 10.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection26.2%This article: 39.8%Lily Janiak: 23.4%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.4%Biased Writer Voice39.8%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lily Janiak: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%Lily Janiak: 3.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.1%

206 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers17%attributed speech171writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageSan Francisco Shakespeare Festival • 27 words • 100.0% coverageKatja Rivera • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Katja Rivera

100%flagged-word coverage
8 attributed words23% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+56.7 ptsWriter: 43.3%Katja Rivera: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-31.6 ptsWriter: 31.6%Katja Rivera: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-30.4 ptsWriter: 30.4%Katja Rivera: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.2 ptsWriter: 1.2%Katja Rivera: 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.