WBUR⁠6%

England and France face off in the World Cup bronze match ⁠3%

By Here⁠38% Now Newsroom⁠38%

7/17/2026, 12:06:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 17.3% saturation with 13 hits. Analysis detected 35 faulty-reasoning hits from 75 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 15.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠3% (20,565 of 21,165 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 97.20% of the article peer group.

England and France face off in the World Cup bronze match 
*Here & Now*'s Scott Tong talks with soccer commentator <a href="https://www.instagram.com/sean_wheelock/? 
hl=en">Sean Wheelock</a> about the matchup between England and France on Saturday. 
Both teams are competing for third place and a bronze medal. 
Also, a look back on what this World Cup will be remembered for. 
This segment aired on July 17, 2026. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Here: 1.6%Cognoscenti: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 7.9%Cognoscenti: 2.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.7%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Here: 29.1%Cognoscenti: 3.8%Framing Effect17.3%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 3.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 20.5%Cognoscenti: 4.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 14.0%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.5%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.7%Here: 5.6%Cognoscenti: 2.6%Appeal to Authority14.7%This article: 0.0%Here: 3.4%Cognoscenti: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.7%Cognoscenti: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 3.4%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 3.4%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 3.1%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 2.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.7%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 14.7%Here: 23.6%Cognoscenti: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice14.7%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 4.8%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

75 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers29%attributed speech53writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageScott Tong • 11 words • 100.0% coverageSean Wheelock • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Scott Tong

100%flagged-word coverage
11 attributed words50% of attributed speech25% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Scott Tong: 100.0%100.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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