STLPR0%

St. Louis emergency management head says agency is making slow but steady progress 89%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

5/12/2026, 10:27:54 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Self-Serving Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 37.8% saturation with 184 hits. Analysis detected 1,033 faulty-reasoning hits from 487 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 82.5% and a BS Rank of 89% (2,326 of 21,197 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.00% of the article peer group.

The head of St. 
Louis’ disaster preparedness agency said the city is making progress when it comes to being prepared for any kind of disaster. 
“The situation at CEMA is not something that happened overnight, and we're not going to fix it overnight, but I do want all of you to know that we are fixing it,” City Emergency Management Agency Commissioner Gregg Favre told members of the Board of Aldermen's budget committee on Tuesday. 
“This will not be solved by the time I appear here next year, but we will be significantly better.” 
The agency came under intense scrutiny after the May 16 tornado, when the outdoor warning sirens failed to sound. 
An external review by St. 
Louis law firm Carmody MacDonald found “multiple cascading failures” and documented a lack of policies in the agency, including an emergency operations plan that was last updated in 2003. 
Then-Commissioner Sarah Russell was placed on leave in May and later fired. 
Favre was hired about four months ago. 
“I have found that the majority of the Carmody findings are both accurate and in many cases understated the problem,” he said. 
Favre said much of the heavy lifting, including updated emergency operations and logistics plans, will have to wait until new staff with experience in those areas join the department in the coming weeks. 
But he said that over the past four months, he and his two employees have written policies for the office, established partnerships with the National Weather Service and drafted the first formal policy for interdepartmental cooperation to respond to winter storms. 
Those steps, he said, “represent significant progress in a long-overdue investment in our city’s readiness posture.” 
The agency still has only three full-time employees, but Favre said four experienced people are coming on board soon, and CEMA’s budget for fiscal 2027 includes funds for an eighth full-time employee. 
While he can work with a staff of that size, Favre said he hoped to eventually get the agency to 11 full-time employees. 
That, he said, is the minimum needed for a city the size of St. 
Louis with complex emergency management needs like “homeland security threats, flooding, earthquakes, tornadoes, the built environment that we have as an older city.” 
Aldermen on the budget committee were complimentary of the work that Favre had already done during his short time as commissioner. 
“It seems like you’re getting really surgical,” said committee Chair Rasheen Aldridge, alderman of the 14th Ward. 
“You know how to work with this department to move it forward.” 
Fifth Ward Alderman Matt Devoti agreed. 
He also applauded Favre for helping him understand exactly the role that an emergency management agency plays in disaster response. 
“Certainly when I heard this presentation last year, that wasn't what was conveyed to me,” he said. 
“It’s extremely enlightening on what this agency can be going forward.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.9%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic3.9%This article: 4.7%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic4.7%This article: 3.5%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias3.5%This article: 2.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias2.9%This article: 7.6%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect7.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.8%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 37.8%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias37.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias12.3%This article: 12.9%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect11.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.2%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority15.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.8%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization6.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.2%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon1.2%This article: 2.3%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion2.3%This article: 10.3%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question10.3%This article: 3.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.9%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal12.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.3%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.3%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote10.3%This article: 2.3%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 10.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice10.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.4%

487 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers72%attributed speech134writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageGregg Favre • 50 words • 100.0% coverageGregg Favre • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageCarmody MacDonald • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageGregg Favre • 22 words • 0.0% coverageGregg Favre • 33 words • 0.0% coverageGregg Favre • 41 words • 100.0% coverageGregg Favre • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageGregg Favre • 23 words • 0.0% coverageGregg Favre • 14 words • 0.0% coverageGregg Favre • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageRasheen Aldridge • 17 words • 0.0% coverageRasheen Aldridge • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Devoti • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Devoti • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Devoti • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Devoti • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Gregg Favre

100%flagged-word coverage
241 attributed words68% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.0 ptsWriter: 24.6%Gregg Favre: 6.6%6.6%Unattributed Quote+20.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Gregg Favre: 20.7%20.7%Attempt to Sell a Product +17.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Gregg Favre: 17.0%17.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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