CBC Radio⁠48%

The real cost of reality TV ⁠95%

By Matt Galloway⁠0%

4/16/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Recency Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 70.7% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 336 faulty-reasoning hits from 82 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 90.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠95% (1,229 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.20% of the article peer group.

Since the dawn of reality television in the '90s, the genre has capitalized on the 'train wreck' appeal of its stars. 
Now, with recent abuse allegations against the Secret Lives of Mormon Wives star Taylor Frankie Paul, there are renewed calls for networks to stop prioritizing dramatic plotlines over participants' mental health. 
We talk to Theresa DeMaria from Netflix's 'Age of Attraction' and Danielle Lindeman, the author of 'True Story: What Reality TV Says About Us.' 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 37.8%Matt Galloway: 2.9%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias37.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.2%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 25.6%Matt Galloway: 8.0%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic25.6%This article: 25.6%Matt Galloway: 1.3%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic25.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.4%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Matt Galloway: 14.8%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect7.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.0%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.5%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.4%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 5.7%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.5%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 45.1%Matt Galloway: 13.0%CBC: 5.6%Negativity Bias45.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.3%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.2%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.1%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 8.4%CBC: 3.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 37.8%Matt Galloway: 0.6%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias37.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.7%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 29.3%Matt Galloway: 11.5%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority29.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.4%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.6%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 25.6%Matt Galloway: 7.4%CBC: 4.9%Hasty Generalization25.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.7%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 37.8%Matt Galloway: 2.7%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon37.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 5.9%CBC: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.6%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.5%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.4%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.5%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 5.8%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.8%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 37.8%Matt Galloway: 1.2%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote37.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.0%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 70.7%Matt Galloway: 15.9%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice70.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 6.0%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.5%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 29.3%Matt Galloway: 4.8%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…29.3%

82 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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