The homicide rate is falling. Domestic killings are not. ⁠73%

By Danielle Paquette⁠0% Hannah Natanson⁠0% John D. Harden⁠0%

6/6/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 58.4% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 291 faulty-reasoning hits from 77 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (5,673 of 20,408 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.20% of the article peer group.

In the first two days of June, authorities said, three fathers killed their children and the mothers who raised them. 
Two used guns. 
One used a knife. 
Of the thirteen victims, the youngest was three. 
Officials cast the mass killings in Iowa, New York and Florida as “an act of evil,” “the worst of the worst,” and “an unimaginable tragedy,” but Doreen Dodgen-Magee thought of another word: preventable. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 2.9%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 1.3%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 36.4%Danielle Paquette: 6.2%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic36.4%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 2.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.1%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 42.9%Danielle Paquette: 7.1%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect42.9%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 1.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 2.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 6.4%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 58.4%Danielle Paquette: 16.6%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias58.4%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 1.5%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 2.8%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Danielle Paquette: 0.6%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 8.8%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 48.1%Danielle Paquette: 1.9%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma48.1%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 5.4%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 8.6%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.6%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 42.9%Danielle Paquette: 11.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion42.9%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 1.4%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 6.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 1.1%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 26.0%Danielle Paquette: 3.8%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal26.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.2%Danielle Paquette: 10.3%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.2%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 26.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.7%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote26.0%This article: 42.9%Danielle Paquette: 5.4%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection42.9%This article: 42.9%Danielle Paquette: 8.5%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice42.9%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 5.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Paquette: 1.3%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

77 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker43%attributed speech44writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDoreen Dodgen-Magee • 33 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Doreen Dodgen-Magee

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words100% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Doreen Dodgen-Magee: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Doreen Dodgen-Magee: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-45.5 ptsWriter: 45.5%Doreen Dodgen-Magee: 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.