BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Recency Bias, and Self-Serving Bias, with False Dilemma as the most egregious example at 14.6% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 564 faulty-reasoning hits from 554 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.4% and a BS Rank of 13% (18,579 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.70% of the article peer group.

The state-appointed board overseeing the St. 
Louis Metropolitan Police Department has paused raises for the department's command staff. 
The board voted 4-0 with one member voting present on Wednesday to take the vote at its June 17 meeting instead. 
While the SLMPD budget for fiscal 2027 includes enough money for the raises, the police department is not responsible for funding the required equal raises for the St. 
Louis Fire Department command staff. 
The two-week pause is meant to give the city the chance to find the money in its budget to cover the cost, which still isn't known. 
The police department raises are expected to cost $2.3 million. 
The board did approve a 4% raise for the SLMPD's more than 300 civilian employees, which will take effect June 28. 
There is no impact on the city’s budget because there are no civilian employees of the fire department. 
All told, the raises are expected to cost the SLMPD about $2.3 million. 
Although Mayor Cara Spencer was the one to ask for the delay, she said it was not an actual solution to the lack of communication from the department and the board about the raises. 
“You’re only looking at how this impacts your budget,” she said. 
“I have news for everyone here. 
The police department doesn’t operate in a vacuum. 
We’re part of a city, and if we don’t start working together and operating like we’re a city, we’re pitting the police department against the city that it pledges to serve.” 
Spencer said at a media availability after the meeting that cuts to the city’s fiscal 2027 budget were almost guaranteed in an effort to make the numbers work. 
“Those cuts have to be thought through, thoughtful and negotiated with the departments. 
These are probably going to be cuts to city workers,” she said. 
The mayor added that it was “not her desire” to use one-time funding sources such as the Rams settlement or reserve funds to cover what would be an ongoing expense, but she did not rule it out entirely. 
Board of Police Commissioners President Chris Saracino said he appreciated the difficult spot the city was in. 
“But our department can’t necessarily be held back because of that charter,” he said. 
“We have an obligation to this department.” 
Police Chief Robert Tracy suggested the time had come to review the pay parity provision, which applies only when police get raises. 
“If the excuse to say you can’t make the St. 
Louis Metropolitan Police Department competitive is because you have to pay the firemen, then find out a way to pay the firemen or change the rules,” he said. 
Spencer, who had the backing of the union representing the city’s firefighters in her two campaigns for mayor, said she was currently focused on getting a balanced budget to the Board of Aldermen by July 1. 
“Other considerations have not been considered at this time, and it’s most important that we get to the budget deadline,” she said. 
With the adjustments that will be needed to fund the fire department raises, the Board of Aldermen will almost certainly have to call a special meeting to meet that deadline. 
This story has been updated with comments from Mayor Cara Spencer and police officials. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect1.4%This article: 5.6%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion5.6%This article: 6.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 7.2%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias8.7%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: 1.3%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%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: 11.9%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias11.9%This article: 4.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.0%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: 6.5%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority6.5%This article: 14.6%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma14.6%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: 12.6%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization12.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.3%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion2.3%This article: 2.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question2.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%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: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.2%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: 6.9%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading6.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote2.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%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: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

554 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers55%attributed speech251writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 11 words • 100.0% coverageCara Spencer • 6 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 8 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 31 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 28 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 12 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 38 words • 0.0% coverageChris Saracino • 17 words • 0.0% coverageChris Saracino • 14 words • 0.0% coverageChris Saracino • 7 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Tracy • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Tracy • 10 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Tracy • 28 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 36 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cara Spencer

97%flagged-word coverage
205 attributed words68% of attributed speech43% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote+5.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cara Spencer: 5.4%5.4%

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.