STLPR0%

St. Louis County Executive Sam Page to go on trial in January over 2025 campaign materials 7%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

6/12/2026, 9:22:13 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Burden of Proof, Framing Effect, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.8% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 516 faulty-reasoning hits from 361 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.8% and a BS Rank of 7% (20,503 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.70% of the article peer group.

St. 
Louis County Executive Sam Page will have left office by the time he goes on trial for campaign finance violations and stealing charges. 
Greene County Judge Kati Greenwade on Friday set the start of the trial for Jan. 
25. 
About 70 jurors will report to the courthouse in Springfield for possible selection. 
Both sides agreed to hear the case outside of the St. 
Louis area due to Page’s status as an elected official. 
He announced last year that he would not seek reelection. 
The attorney general’s office, which is prosecuting the case, had asked for a trial date in November or December. 
But Greenwade said she did not have time on her calendar in those months to fit the case in, especially with the holidays. 
It’s set to last for five days. 
A St. 
Louis County grand jury charged Page last July with two campaign finance misdemeanors and two felony counts of stealing by deceit for ordering the printing and distribution of mailers and fliers outlining the consequences of Proposition B. 
The April 2025 ballot measure, which failed, would have allowed the council to fire certain department heads with five of seven votes. 
Six of the seven council members are generally combative with Page. 
The front of the mailer listed groups that opposed Proposition B and included wording from a court ruling ordering a change in the language appearing on the ballot. 
The “paid for” line said "St. 
Louis County." 
The county also printed postcards it distributed at various community events that contained the same information as the mailers. 
State law forbids any elected official to spend public funds to campaign for or against a ballot measure. 
Page had argued that the printed materials were purely educational. 
The judge has yet to rule on two pending defense motions to dismiss the case. 
One argues that the state has not clearly explained how Page committed the misdemeanor campaign finance violations. 
Greenwade in December rejected a similar defense request. 
In a second motion to throw out the entire case, defense attorneys call the prosecution politically motivated. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.8%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias7.8%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: 10.2%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic10.2%This article: 2.8%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect10.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.8%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias23.8%This article: 2.8%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias2.8%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: 3.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias3.0%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: 2.2%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 4.2%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem4.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.1%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority9.1%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: 3.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization3.0%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: 4.7%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion4.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 15.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof15.0%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: 6.4%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.4%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: 2.8%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading2.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.4%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote6.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 8.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice8.9%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%

361 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers12%attributed speech318writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSam Page • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageKati Greenwade • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageSam Page • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kati Greenwade

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words53% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-10.1 ptsWriter: 10.1%Kati Greenwade: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Kati Greenwade: 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.