CBC Radio⁠49%

June 10, 2026: Caring for senior with dementia; investigation into Cricket Canada; New York loves the Knicks; and our attention span ⁠40%

By Matt Galloway⁠0%

6/10/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 52.4% saturation with 44 hits. Analysis detected 133 faulty-reasoning hits from 84 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠40% (13,249 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.50% of the article peer group.

Can't concentrate? 
What about thinking deeply? 
Attention spans are shrinking rapidly. 
Cal Newport, a professor of computer science at Georgetown University and the author of the bestselling book 'Deep Work' says we're facing a crisis — an attack on our ability to think. 
He's calling for what he calls a revolution in defence of thinking. 
He outlines the steps for reclaiming your attention. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 2.9%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.2%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 8.0%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.3%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.4%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 52.4%Matt Galloway: 14.8%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect52.4%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: 38.1%Matt Galloway: 13.0%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias38.1%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: 3.6%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: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.6%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%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: 38.1%Matt Galloway: 11.5%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority38.1%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: 6.0%Matt Galloway: 7.4%CBC: 4.8%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.7%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 2.7%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.3%Matt Galloway: 5.9%CBC: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion14.3%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: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.2%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.0%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 15.9%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 9.5%Matt Galloway: 6.0%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination9.5%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: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 4.8%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

84 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker62%attributed speech32writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageCal Newport • 32 words • 0.0% coverageCal Newport • 12 words • 0.0% coverageCal Newport • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cal Newport

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words100% of attributed speech16% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Indoctrination+15.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cal Newport: 15.4%15.4%

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.