KQED⁠60%

Iconic Illustrated Anchor Steam Labels Appear Headed for Revival ⁠49%

By Sydney Johnson⁠57%

7/2/2026, 10:04:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Optimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 25.9% saturation with 147 hits. Analysis detected 1,455 faulty-reasoning hits from 568 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠49% (10,389 of 20,369 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 51.00% of the article peer group.

Anchor Brewing Company, one of the country’s oldest craft breweries, has applied for and received approval for two beer labels featuring the San Francisco-based company’s original illustrated art. 
The approval from the federal bureau tasked with regulating alcohol labels comes amid bubbling rumors that beer could once again flow from Anchor’s now-shuttered Potrero Hill taproom and brewery. 
The apparent return of the company’s iconic label has already sparked excitement from Anchor fans who said the company’s controversial modern rebrand in 2021 contributed to declining sales and the eventual wind-down of Anchor Brewing in 2023. 
“It makes sense that they’re going with the old labels because of that huge backlash when we did rebrand,” said Patrick Costello, who previously worked at the Anchor brewery. 
“Some people might think that it’s not a big deal, but it really was one of the nails in the coffin for us.” 
After 127 years of brewing beer in San Francisco, Anchor closed its doors in 2023, leaving many fans lamenting the loss of one of the city’s legacy businesses and an early leader in the craft beer scene. 
Anchor Brewing has received approval for two separate labels, one for the Anchor Steam Beer and another for the company’s Old Foghorn ale, filings from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau show. 
The labels both use the original art by Jim Stitt, who designed Anchor’s beer labels for 45 years. 
The old-fashioned branding is reminiscent of the early port shipping days in San Francisco, with anchor emblems and vintage fonts. 
“It’s a classic. 
Everybody knows Anchor Brewing because of the Steam beer and Foghorn,” said Costello, noting that one of his favorites doesn’t appear on the list of labels the company recently applied for. 
“I might have gone with the porter.” 
Rumors have swirled online about seeing people inside the old Anchor brewery in Potrero Hill. 
On June 19, Ulukaya posted a photo of himself watching a World Cup match from inside the Anchor taproom to his personal Instagram account. 
Costello, who now works for a brewery in Alameda, said he hadn’t been aware of the label approvals but was excited to see some movement. 
Several Anchor brewery alumni recently gathered at the San Francisco bar Buzzworks to rally support for their union, which was part of ILWU Local 6. 
Costello said he and several former workers said they are open to returning, and they held the event to drum up energy behind their efforts to return as a unionized brewery. 
Anchor Steam beer is hard to come by these days with production on hiatus, but Costello said the bar owner pulled out a reserved case for the event. 
He added that the former workers have not received any direct communications from Ulukaya. 
“Workers are still here, and we’re still ready to take our jobs back and ready to get to work,” Costello said. 
Other former workers have also moved in different directions, but Costello said there is plenty of interest among former brewery workers in coming back and excitement for taps to turn on again. 
On Thursday, Anchor’s Potrero Hill building was quiet. 
But a couple of cars were in the parking lot, and behind a chain-linked fence surrounding the taproom, lights were on inside and loading dock doors were wide open. 
“It feels like it’s going to happen pretty soon,” Costello said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.1%Sydney Johnson: 2.3%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.7%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.8%Sydney Johnson: 3.4%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic23.8%This article: 3.5%Sydney Johnson: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic3.5%This article: 6.5%Sydney Johnson: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Sydney Johnson: 7.6%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect6.7%This article: 6.5%Sydney Johnson: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion6.5%This article: 3.7%Sydney Johnson: 0.8%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.0%Sydney Johnson: 4.5%CalMatters: 3.6%Optimism Bias19.0%This article: 3.7%Sydney Johnson: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias3.7%This article: 17.1%Sydney Johnson: 7.4%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias17.1%This article: 15.1%Sydney Johnson: 2.6%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias15.1%This article: 5.1%Sydney Johnson: 1.5%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error5.1%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Sydney Johnson: 2.4%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Sydney Johnson: 2.7%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.6%Sydney Johnson: 1.1%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias7.6%This article: 5.5%Sydney Johnson: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 1.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.0%Sydney Johnson: 2.8%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority6.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 1.8%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.7%Sydney Johnson: 4.0%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization13.7%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 11.1%Sydney Johnson: 1.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon11.1%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 4.9%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 5.1%Sydney Johnson: 0.7%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question5.1%This article: 21.8%Sydney Johnson: 2.3%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.8%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.5%Sydney Johnson: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof2.5%This article: 3.5%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature3.5%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.6%Sydney Johnson: 3.5%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal11.6%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.5%Sydney Johnson: 1.1%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.5%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.5%Sydney Johnson: 1.1%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote5.5%This article: 5.1%Sydney Johnson: 0.9%CalMatters: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection5.1%This article: 25.9%Sydney Johnson: 3.1%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice25.9%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.8%CalMatters: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 1.6%CalMatters: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.8%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

568 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker40%attributed speech341writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coveragePatrick Costello • 29 words • 100.0% coveragePatrick Costello • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coveragePatrick Costello • 3 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Costello • 31 words • 100.0% coveragePatrick Costello • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Costello • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Costello • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Costello • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Costello • 21 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Costello • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Costello • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Patrick Costello

100%flagged-word coverage
227 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-43.1 ptsWriter: 43.1%Patrick Costello: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+13.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Patrick Costello: 13.7%13.7%Quote-first Misdirection+12.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Patrick Costello: 12.8%12.8%

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.