404 Media⁠48%

County With 37 Data Centers Asks Schools to ‘Conserve Electricity’ ⁠54%

By Matthew Gault⁠34%

6/30/2026, 3:49:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Loss Aversion, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 28.4% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 243 faulty-reasoning hits from 176 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (10,259 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.10% of the article peer group.

On June 26, the County Manager of Henrico County, Virginia, John Vithoulkas, sent an email to thousands of county employees asking them to help the local government conserve electricity. 
“Beginning July 1st, the rate we pay for electricity used in all Henrico County government and school facilities will increase dramatically — by 25%, increasing costs by an estimated $5 million next fiscal year. 
We anticipate more rate increases for electricity in the years ahead,” a copy of the email obtained by 404 Media said (emphasis his). 
Henrico County is a community of more than 350,000 people in eastern Virginia just outside of Richmond. 
It also hosts 37 data centers and there are plans to build 17 more, including plans to convert hundreds of acres of Civil War battlefields into data centers. 
Thanks to its proximity to DC and vast amounts of land, Henrico County became a data center hub seemingly overnight and its services clients big and small. 
Meta built a data center there in 2017. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 3.8%404 Media: 3.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.7%404 Media: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%Matthew Gault: 2.2%404 Media: 3.8%Availability Heuristic15.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 1.1%404 Media: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.5%404 Media: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 1.2%404 Media: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Matthew Gault: 4.2%404 Media: 5.6%Framing Effect5.7%This article: 19.3%Matthew Gault: 0.6%404 Media: 0.4%Loss Aversion19.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.4%404 Media: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 1.0%404 Media: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 1.4%404 Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.6%Matthew Gault: 12.1%404 Media: 11.5%Negativity Bias21.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 1.0%404 Media: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.7%404 Media: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.1%404 Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.2%404 Media: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.2%404 Media: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.6%404 Media: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.1%404 Media: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.9%404 Media: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.1%404 Media: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.7%404 Media: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.2%404 Media: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 3.9%404 Media: 3.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 1.3%404 Media: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 1.9%404 Media: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.1%Matthew Gault: 6.4%404 Media: 7.8%Hasty Generalization13.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.4%404 Media: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 1.1%404 Media: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 4.5%404 Media: 4.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.9%404 Media: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.3%Matthew Gault: 1.7%404 Media: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.3%404 Media: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.0%404 Media: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.2%404 Media: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 2.9%404 Media: 2.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 1.6%404 Media: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.4%404 Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.4%404 Media: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.3%Matthew Gault: 4.5%404 Media: 2.6%Unattributed Quote19.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 1.4%404 Media: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 28.4%Matthew Gault: 9.6%404 Media: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice28.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.4%404 Media: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.6%404 Media: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Gault: 0.3%404 Media: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

176 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers53%attributed speech82writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Vithoulkas • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Vithoulkas • 34 words • 100.0% coverage404 Media • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageMeta • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

404 Media

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words24% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+67.1 ptsWriter: 32.9%404 Media: 100.0%100.0%

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.