STLPR0%

Missourians rally against data centers as officials gather to discuss them 34%

By Sarah Kellogg38%

6/17/2026, 8:26:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 29.7% saturation with 199 hits. Analysis detected 1,508 faulty-reasoning hits from 671 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.9% and a BS Rank of 34% (14,554 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.50% of the article peer group.

Preceding a data center summit in Jefferson City, roughly 100 Missourians gathered on Wednesday to rally against the development and construction of the centers across the state. 
Protesters lined up along Oil Well Road, where cars had to drive by to reach the data center summit held at the Capitol Bluffs Center. 
The summit, labeled as an education event, was limited to members of the Missouri Association of Counties, Missouri Municipal League and the Missouri School Boards’ Association. 
Vendors, corporate partners and the public were not allowed to participate, which angered opponents of the centers. 
“Even though the people who live, work, and farm at the front lines of these industrial invasions have the most at stake,” said Olivia Stockman with the Missouri Rural Crisis Center. 
Protesters chanted, waved at passersby and listened to the series of speeches given by people who would be affected by data centers from all parts of the state. 
They included Gabe Cotton of Festus, where citizens in April voted to oust four city council members who were in favor of a data center and have attempted to recall three other members as well as the mayor. 
“They are only digging their hole deeper, and we will remove them from office. 
This has and will continue to be an ongoing battle, and we will keep winning, because our community refuses to sit down,” Cotton said. 
He added that Festus doesn’t have to be an anomaly when it comes to pushing back against data centers. 
“The story of Festus is the story of any small town fighting a well-funded industrial monster that is working to harm it. 
You have the power to stop it,” Cotton said. 
Another area of the state seeing pushback to data center development is Joplin. 
Speaking to the crowd, resident Brenna Bower said she has watched her community come together to fight data center development. 
“The people who live, farm and work at the front lines of these massive industrial encroachments deserve to have their voices heard. 
They have the most at stake, and they have a right to know what the impact would be for their communities, natural resources, farmland, and economic livelihoods,” Bower said. 
The rally was held shortly after Amazon announced the building of a multibillion-dollar data center in Montgomery County. 
Harry Cope, who is running for presiding commissioner of Montgomery County, said corporations are underpaying what they should in taxes for these data centers. 
“We probably can't stop them, but for God's sakes, at least make them contribute their fair share,” Cope said. 
Protecting Missouri’s environment, including water resources, was on the minds of many attendees. 
KJ McDonald, of Joplin, said her top priority is protecting Missouri’s water, which would be threatened by large use at data centers. 
“In southwest Missouri, we have been on the verge of drought for many years. 
We've actually just moved out of the fear of drought recently,” McDonald said. 
McDonald said the centers need more public input. 
“There are definitely people who see the value in needing to have data centers clearly. 
We have a lot of technology that we use in our day-to-day lives, and there is necessary infrastructure for that,” McDonald said. 
“But everybody believes that this was pushed through really quickly without very much public input.” 
Elyse Schaeffer, with the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, said that without proper regulations, data centers will cause issues for Missouri’s water, electric and human resources. 
“We stand here today, nearly a mile from the shore of one of our state's many great rivers, the Missouri River itself, our state's water resources are under attack by tech billionaires who want to literally suck Missouri dry.” 
Schaeffer also mentioned St. 
Charles, which has a permanent moratorium on large-scale data centers. 
“We did it here in Missouri. 
This is the Show-Me State and to data center developers, we say ‘Show us you can do it right or do not do it at all,’” Schaeffer said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.7%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic13.4%This article: 4.8%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.9%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.9%This article: 3.3%Sarah Kellogg: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias3.3%This article: 13.7%Sarah Kellogg: 7.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect13.7%This article: 10.1%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion10.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.2%Sarah Kellogg: 3.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias7.2%This article: 14.2%Sarah Kellogg: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias14.2%This article: 16.5%Sarah Kellogg: 4.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias16.5%This article: 7.2%Sarah Kellogg: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.6%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.9%Sarah Kellogg: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority8.9%This article: 7.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma7.0%This article: 3.6%Sarah Kellogg: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope3.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.2%Sarah Kellogg: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization9.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.2%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon2.2%This article: 29.7%Sarah Kellogg: 9.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion29.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.7%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.3%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof1.3%This article: 3.3%Sarah Kellogg: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature3.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.6%Sarah Kellogg: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal10.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.8%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.9%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.1%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote2.1%This article: 13.7%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection13.7%This article: 1.6%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice1.6%This article: 11.6%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination11.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

671 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers73%attributed speech178writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageOlivia Stockman • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Cotton • 38 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Cotton • 14 words • 100.0% coverageGabe Cotton • 24 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Cotton • 19 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Cotton • 22 words • 100.0% coverageGabe Cotton • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageBrenna Bower • 20 words • 0.0% coverageBrenna Bower • 22 words • 100.0% coverageBrenna Bower • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageHarry Cope • 24 words • 0.0% coverageHarry Cope • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKJ McDonald • 22 words • 0.0% coverageKJ McDonald • 14 words • 0.0% coverageKJ McDonald • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKJ McDonald • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKJ McDonald • 15 words • 0.0% coverageKJ McDonald • 22 words • 0.0% coverageKJ McDonald • 15 words • 0.0% coverageElyse Schaeffer • 26 words • 0.0% coverageElyse Schaeffer • 39 words • 100.0% coverageElyse Schaeffer • 4 words • 0.0% coverageElyse Schaeffer • 10 words • 0.0% coverageElyse Schaeffer • 6 words • 0.0% coverageElyse Schaeffer • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Elyse Schaeffer

96%flagged-word coverage
113 attributed words23% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Quote-first Misdirection+34.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Elyse Schaeffer: 34.5%34.5%Indoctrination+24.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Elyse Schaeffer: 24.8%24.8%Biased Writer Voice-6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%Elyse Schaeffer: 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.