Spencer Pratt reveals plan to make Hollywood great again amid Tinseltown exodus as bombshell poll signals upset in LA mayoral race ⁠71%

By Alyssa Guzman⁠80%

5/30/2026, 3:43:47 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.9% saturation with 202 hits. Analysis detected 1,290 faulty-reasoning hits from 578 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠71% (6,005 of 20,108 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.10% of the article peer group.

Former reality star and mayoral candidate, Spencer Pratt, is taking his vast TV knowledge to call out his opponents for destroying California's crown economic jewel. 
Pratt, 42, went on a lengthy X rant on Friday, calling out his opponents, incumbent Karen Bass and Nithya Raman, for destroying Hollywood. 
'Nithya did NOTHING as Hollywood fell into the abyss over the last few years, and now she wants you to believe she suddenly cares? 
She thinks you’re dumb,' he wrote. 
'Karen and Nithya treat productions like a nuisance, and they’ve killed our golden goose.' 
Pratt would have first-hand knowledge of the production landscape in Los Angeles as he spent years on the reality show, The Hills, which largely filmed in the City of Angels between 2006 and 2010. 
The husband of Heidi Montag promised he would 'pull out ALL the stops to eliminate every lame reason that makes filming in LA a pain in the neck.' 
His proposal includes making permitting and parking approvals 'cheap' and 'easy,' increasing LAPD patrols in hotspots to protect the crew, and removing addicts and the homeless from the area. 
'We need to win back these productions, and tax credits aren’t enough to do it,' he wrote. 
'They just need filming to be easier and safer in LA. 
They need LA to be nicer, and less disgusting.' 
Pratt also claimed many filmmakers and agencies have left LA, along with droves of other locals, because it's not 'fun anymore' to live in the city, which is full of unsightly scenes. 
'Even the wealthy cast members of Nithya’s husband’s show have moved out of CA. 
Nobody likes living under Nithya’s leadership,' the former reality star wrote. 
'The city needs to roll out the red carpet for productions.' 
Raman's husband, Vali Chandrasekaran, is a prominent screenwriter who has worked on shows like 30 Rock and Modern Family. 
When the Daily Mail approached Raman's campaign regarding Pratt's outburst against her, her team sent back links to her website and news articles about her plan to up jobs in Hollywood. 
Her website agreed with Pratt's position that Hollywood was dying and that 'Los Angeles was losing Hollywood.' 
'Not because productions want to leave, but because we've made it too hard for them to stay,' her website read. 
On Friday, Raman urged Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom to support uncapped tax incentives for film and TV productions. 
Bass has also called for this same measure. 
'We must ensure that Hollywood remains a reliable on-ramp into the middle class for Angelenos,' Raman said at a press conference. 
'We must protect that before it slips further away.' 
Raman has deep connections to Hollywood through her husband, and major names like Tiny Fey and Mindy Kaling have contributed to her campaign. 
Despite having the support of some of Hollywood's most elite, Raman is still polling behind Pratt and Bass. 
Pratt and Bass are practically tied in the latest election poll by the California Post, showing the reality star with 30.1 percent of support and the incumbent with 29.5 percent. 
Raman is only polling 23.4 percent of the votes, however, 40 percent of voters view her favorably. 
Voters are deeply worried about the homelessness crisis in LA, as well as housing affordability, the poll found. 
The primary will be held on Tuesday. 
The Daily Mail has reached out to Pratt and Bass for further comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.4%Alyssa Guzman: 7.0%Daily Mail: 2.7%Confirmation Bias14.4%This article: 5.2%Alyssa Guzman: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.7%Anchoring Bias5.2%This article: 8.7%Alyssa Guzman: 5.3%Daily Mail: 2.8%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 2.4%Alyssa Guzman: 2.6%Daily Mail: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic2.4%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Alyssa Guzman: 2.0%Daily Mail: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias5.9%This article: 12.1%Alyssa Guzman: 12.2%Daily Mail: 6.9%Framing Effect12.1%This article: 1.6%Alyssa Guzman: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.4%Loss Aversion1.6%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Alyssa Guzman: 2.5%Daily Mail: 2.1%Optimism Bias4.8%This article: 8.1%Alyssa Guzman: 2.3%Daily Mail: 1.1%Pessimism Bias8.1%This article: 34.9%Alyssa Guzman: 15.0%Daily Mail: 10.9%Negativity Bias34.9%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 1.2%Daily Mail: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Alyssa Guzman: 1.0%Daily Mail: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error3.5%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.5%Daily Mail: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 2.2%Daily Mail: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Alyssa Guzman: 1.8%Daily Mail: 5.0%Halo Effect7.3%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%Alyssa Guzman: 2.8%Daily Mail: 1.7%Recency Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Alyssa Guzman: 2.1%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem11.8%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.1%Alyssa Guzman: 5.1%Daily Mail: 3.0%Appeal to Authority13.1%This article: 6.4%Alyssa Guzman: 2.2%Daily Mail: 0.9%False Dilemma6.4%This article: 5.0%Alyssa Guzman: 1.1%Daily Mail: 0.4%Slippery Slope5.0%This article: 3.5%Alyssa Guzman: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning3.5%This article: 14.2%Alyssa Guzman: 7.9%Daily Mail: 3.9%Hasty Generalization14.2%This article: 8.3%Alyssa Guzman: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.4%Red Herring8.3%This article: 5.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon5.0%This article: 7.1%Alyssa Guzman: 6.4%Daily Mail: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion7.1%This article: 7.1%Alyssa Guzman: 1.0%Daily Mail: 0.5%Begging the Question7.1%This article: 2.4%Alyssa Guzman: 7.0%Daily Mail: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.4%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.6%Alyssa Guzman: 3.4%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal6.6%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.5%Alyssa Guzman: 4.7%Daily Mail: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.5%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.2%Alyssa Guzman: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.1%Middle Ground5.2%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.5%Alyssa Guzman: 2.5%Daily Mail: 3.3%Unattributed Quote3.5%This article: 4.3%Alyssa Guzman: 3.3%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection4.3%This article: 4.3%Alyssa Guzman: 8.7%Daily Mail: 8.9%Biased Writer Voice4.3%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.3%Daily Mail: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyssa Guzman: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

578 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers40%attributed speech345writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 23 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 24 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 6 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 32 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageNithya Raman • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageNithya Raman • 21 words • 0.0% coverageNithya Raman • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDaily Mail • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Spencer Pratt

100%flagged-word coverage
172 attributed words74% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Spencer Pratt: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Spencer Pratt: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.8 ptsWriter: 5.8%Spencer Pratt: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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