STLPR0%

St. Louis County judge keeps Page in charge while on trade mission to London 46%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

4/16/2026, 3:36:47 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Optimism Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Self-Serving Bias as the most egregious example at 23% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 356 faulty-reasoning hits from 282 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.9% and a BS Rank of 46% (11,988 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.80% of the article peer group.

The head of the St. 
Louis County Council will not become acting county executive when Sam Page goes to London on Sunday. 
Circuit Judge Mary Elizabeth Ott on Thursday granted a request from Page to halt enforcement of a 2025 ordinance that places the chair of the council in charge of county government if the executive is out of the country or temporarily disabled. 
“This Court finds that although physically absent from the County, State and Continental United States, from April 19, 2026 through April 24, 2026 the Petitioner Sam Page in his capacity as St. 
Louis County Executive will not be effectively absent from the County as the Supreme Court of Missouri has defined that term,” Ott wrote. 
Page said Tuesday he would be reachable by phone and other modes of communication and could therefore carry out the duties of county executive. 
The ordinance would have put Chairwoman Rita Heard Days, D-Bel-Nor, and a frequent critic of Page’s, in charge for the six days. 
She had told St. 
Louis Public Radio previously she had no plans to make drastic changes while Page was away. 
Days said Thursday she would abide by the judge’s ruling. 
An outside attorney for the county council said she would not comment on pending litigation, including whether the council might appeal the temporary restraining order. 
A spokesperson for Page said in a statement that the county executive appreciated the ruling and Ott’s “thoughtful consideration of the facts and the law.” 
“With this ruling, Dr. 
Page looks forward to leading a delegation of regional leaders on a trade mission to London,” the statement said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 15.2%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias15.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias7.8%This article: 23.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias23.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect8.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem7.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority23.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 8.2%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning8.2%This article: 8.5%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization8.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.3%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

282 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers39%attributed speech173writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageMary Elizabeth Ott • 32 words • 0.0% coverageMary Elizabeth Ott • 23 words • 0.0% coverageSam Page • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRita Heard Days • 4 words • 0.0% coverageRita Heard Days • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRita Heard Days • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sam Page

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words22% of attributed speech70% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.