Jack White Performs the White Stripes' 'Cannon' With Daughter Scarlett ⁠11%

By Charisma Madarang⁠41%

7/14/2026, 1:06:06 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 27.1% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 203 faulty-reasoning hits from 192 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠11% (18,879 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.10% of the article peer group.

Jack White made it a family affair during his performance at the Brooklyn Paramount over the weekend. 
The musician brought out his daughter Scarlett to play bass during his crushing delivery of the White Stripes’ 1999 track “Cannon.” 
White, who has a no-set list rule for his live shows, spoke with Rolling Stone in 2018 about how he decides what to play on the fly. 
Speaking about his May show at the Austin360 Amphitheater that year, White called “Cannon” a “MacGuffin – it’s like a placeholder for me to take a breath and let the crowd have a groove for a second and then break into a different song.” 
He added, “That night, it’s one of those things I played for 40 seconds and then we went into ‘Broken Boy Soldiers,’ the Raconteurs song. 
White, who celebrated his 51st birthday last week, is on tour in support of his eighth solo album, Frozen Charlotte. 
Rolling Stone praised his new LP, declaring White’s latest project “very much a rage for these times, 13 songs of perpetual disorder, challenged connections, and idealism under siege.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.8%Rolling Stone: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.1%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.9%Rolling Stone: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.6%Rolling Stone: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 5.7%Rolling Stone: 5.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.0%Rolling Stone: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.9%Rolling Stone: 1.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Charisma Madarang: 9.4%Rolling Stone: 7.3%Negativity Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.8%Rolling Stone: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.4%Rolling Stone: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.5%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.4%Rolling Stone: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.5%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 14.6%Charisma Madarang: 6.9%Rolling Stone: 4.8%Halo Effect14.6%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.4%Rolling Stone: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.1%Rolling Stone: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.6%Charisma Madarang: 5.3%Rolling Stone: 3.4%Appeal to Authority14.6%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.4%Rolling Stone: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 3.3%Rolling Stone: 5.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.5%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 7.9%Rolling Stone: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.7%Rolling Stone: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.8%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.7%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.9%Rolling Stone: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.0%Charisma Madarang: 3.4%Rolling Stone: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 27.1%Charisma Madarang: 4.1%Rolling Stone: 1.5%Unattributed Quote27.1%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.7%Rolling Stone: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 25.5%Charisma Madarang: 6.8%Rolling Stone: 8.7%Biased Writer Voice25.5%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.6%Rolling Stone: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.2%Rolling Stone: 1.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 3.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

192 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers65%attributed speech68writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageJack White • 27 words • 100.0% coverageJack White • 44 words • 0.0% coverageJack White • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageRolling Stone • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rolling Stone

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words23% of attributed speech31% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+69.1 ptsWriter: 30.9%Rolling Stone: 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.