America already tried permanent daylight saving time. It lasted less than a year. Could it work now? 24%

By DEEPTI HAJELA45%

7/15/2026, 9:01:56 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Availability Heuristic, and Confirmation Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 20.6% saturation with 104 hits. Analysis detected 896 faulty-reasoning hits from 506 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.7% and a BS Rank of 24% (16,721 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.40% of the article peer group.

NEW YORK (AP)  It's an idea whose time, as it were, may have come  again. 
The twice-yearly changing of the clocks in the United States could be a thing of the past if legislation currently in Congress that calls for permanent daylight time makes it through. 
But even as annoying as some find the back-and-forth of the time shift in the spring and the fall, that doesn't necessarily mean sticking to one would go over well. 
America has tried it before, most recently in the 1970s, and it didn't last. 
Now it's a new era, one full of people working at home who didn't before  and advances in sleep science that tell a more nuanced tale. 
Could this time (shift) be the charm? 
What's going on this time around? 
The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to pass a bill that makes the shift to daylight saving time, when clocks are moved forward one hour, become permanent. 
Currently, the shift is forward in spring and back to standard time in fall as a way to give people more daylight time in the summer evenings. 
But the semi-annual change has few fans - an AP-NORC poll last year found that only 12% of American adults were in favor of it, while almost half opposed it. 
Proponents of a single time include the American Medical Association and American Academy of Sleep Medicine  outfits to whom daily rhythms are deeply important. 
The Senate would have to pass it before it could be signed into law. 
President Donald Trump has indicated he's supportive. 
So just change it. 
What's the big deal? 
Not so fast. 
People may not like making the change, but history shows they also don't like living with even less morning light in the winter months, when daylight hours are shorter than in summer. 
In 1973, Congress passed a law instituting permanent daylight saving time for what was supposed to be a trial period from January 1974 to April 1975. 
It lasted until October, when it was repealed after public outcry. 
Among the concerns was worry that schoolchildren would have to get to class in darkness. 
These days, school starting times have started to shift later. 
Kevin Birth, a professor of anthropology at Queens College whose research focuses on cultural concepts of time, was in elementary school in Syracuse, New York, at the time and remembers it vividly. 
“I had to get up for school and it was like it was midnight,” he said. 
“It was just pitch black and it remained pitch black into the school day.” 
If the U.S. decides to try it again, he said, more has to change than just the clocks. 
The time zones across the country would need to be adapted as well. 
The current four zones wouldn't be adequate - they cover so much ground that sunrise comes at different times in western and eastern parts of each zone. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.6%Associated Press: 1.4%Confirmation Bias13.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.3%Associated Press: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.8%Deepti Hajela: 6.6%Associated Press: 3.1%Availability Heuristic17.8%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.7%Associated Press: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.1%Deepti Hajela: 2.6%Associated Press: 1.2%Hindsight Bias9.1%This article: 5.3%Deepti Hajela: 1.0%Associated Press: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias5.3%This article: 12.3%Deepti Hajela: 8.7%Associated Press: 3.3%Framing Effect12.3%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.6%Associated Press: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 1.2%Associated Press: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Deepti Hajela: 0.5%Associated Press: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect1.4%This article: 7.5%Deepti Hajela: 3.9%Associated Press: 2.1%Optimism Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 1.9%Associated Press: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Deepti Hajela: 11.6%Associated Press: 3.7%Negativity Bias12.3%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.2%Associated Press: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.8%Associated Press: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 1.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.4%Associated Press: 0.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Deepti Hajela: 1.2%Associated Press: 0.7%Recency Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.6%Associated Press: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Deepti Hajela: 0.2%Associated Press: 0.6%Blind-Spot Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.2%Associated Press: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.7%Deepti Hajela: 6.5%Associated Press: 3.6%Appeal to Authority11.7%This article: 5.9%Deepti Hajela: 1.9%Associated Press: 1.3%False Dilemma5.9%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.4%Associated Press: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.2%Deepti Hajela: 5.5%Associated Press: 2.2%Hasty Generalization19.2%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.7%Deepti Hajela: 2.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Bandwagon5.7%This article: 5.9%Deepti Hajela: 8.0%Associated Press: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion5.9%This article: 0.8%Deepti Hajela: 0.3%Associated Press: 0.1%Begging the Question0.8%This article: 4.2%Deepti Hajela: 1.5%Associated Press: 0.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.2%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.5%Associated Press: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 6.3%Deepti Hajela: 0.2%Associated Press: 0.7%Appeal to Nature6.3%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 20.6%Deepti Hajela: 8.6%Associated Press: 3.2%Anecdotal20.6%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.2%Associated Press: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.9%Associated Press: 0.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.2%Associated Press: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.8%Deepti Hajela: 0.3%Associated Press: 0.1%Special Pleading0.8%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Deepti Hajela: 0.4%Associated Press: 0.8%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.7%Associated Press: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.4%Deepti Hajela: 3.0%Associated Press: 1.5%Biased Writer Voice3.4%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.8%Associated Press: 2.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.3%Associated Press: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

506 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers31%attributed speech350writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageHouse of Representatives • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePresident Donald Trump • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Birth • 32 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Birth • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Birth • 14 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Birth • 18 words • 100.0% coverageKevin Birth • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Birth • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words4.5% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%President Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%President Donald Trump: 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.