KQED⁠61%

KQED Politics Team Looks Back at the Defining Political Stories of 2025 and Ahead to 2026⁠0%

By Scott Shafer⁠0% Marisa Lagos⁠87%

12/20/2025, 12:05:19 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 76.3% saturation with 71 hits. Analysis detected 300 faulty-reasoning hits from 93 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

This year in politics, President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco received new mayors and a redistricting battle reshaped the state’s congressional map. 
Scott and Marisa are joined by the San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer Joe Garofoli to analyze the year’s top political stories. 
Plus, they look ahead to 2026, when the race of governor of California heats up and competitive midterm elections will determine control of the U.S. House of Representatives. 
Check out Political Breakdown’s weekly newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 23.7%Scott Shafer: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias23.7%This article: 34.4%Scott Shafer: 6.5%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic34.4%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 23.7%Scott Shafer: 6.3%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias23.7%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 76.3%Scott Shafer: 30.0%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect76.3%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 5.3%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.0%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 3.8%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 34.4%Scott Shafer: 22.1%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias34.4%This article: 30.1%Scott Shafer: 3.5%CalMatters: 3.5%Optimism Bias30.1%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.1%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 30.1%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias30.1%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.9%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.5%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 46.2%Scott Shafer: 7.0%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias46.2%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.9%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.2%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.7%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 23.7%Scott Shafer: 7.6%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority23.7%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 7.5%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.4%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.6%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 4.2%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 3.9%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.5%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%

93 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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