KQED⁠60%

SF Chronicle Reporter on the Investigation That Ended Swalwell's Career ⁠0%

By Scott Shafer⁠0% Marisa Lagos⁠88%

4/14/2026, 11:47:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Anecdotal, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 43.4% saturation with 49 hits. Analysis detected 276 faulty-reasoning hits from 113 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 20,372 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

When the San Francisco Chronicle published the story of a woman accusing Rep. 
Eric Swalwell of rape, his surging gubernatorial campaign collapsed within days. 
Swalwell still denies the most serious allegations but he has since resigned his House seat. 
Scott and Marisa talk to the San Francisco Chronicle’s Sophia Bollag, who broke the story alongside her colleague Alexei Koseff. 
She describes how the story came together and what it took to bring to light a secret that political insiders have since admitted has circulated around Swalwell for years. 
[YouTube video embedded: https://www.youtube.com/embed/IohGPv7K8Xg] 
Check out Political Breakdown’s weekly newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 6.3%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 25.7%Scott Shafer: 6.5%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic25.7%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.0%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.6%Scott Shafer: 30.0%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect18.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%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: 3.5%CalMatters: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.9%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.1%Scott Shafer: 22.1%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias22.1%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.9%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 3.8%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.1%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 5.3%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 7.0%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.5%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 43.4%Scott Shafer: 7.6%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority43.4%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.4%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%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%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.7%Scott Shafer: 4.2%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization9.7%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.5%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 7.5%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 8.8%Scott Shafer: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question8.8%This article: 23.0%Scott Shafer: 3.9%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 25.7%Scott Shafer: 1.7%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal25.7%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.6%CalMatters: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 25.7%Scott Shafer: 1.8%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote25.7%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 31.9%Scott Shafer: 20.5%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice31.9%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.7%CalMatters: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 8.4%CalMatters: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Scott Shafer: 8.5%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.7%

113 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.