St. Louis takes first step to say ‘thank you’ to employees with $1,000 bonus 29%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

5/4/2026, 9:27:49 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and In-Group Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 16.1% saturation with 29 hits. Analysis detected 118 faulty-reasoning hits from 180 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.4% and a BS Rank of 29% (15,584 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 71.20% of the article peer group.

The City of St. 
Louis has taken a first step toward approving one-time, $1,000 payouts for most of its employees. 
The Budget and Public Employees Committee of the Board of Aldermen voted unanimously on Monday to send the bill authorizing the bonuses to the full board. 
It will need two votes there to reach the desk of Mayor Cara Spencer. 
“One thousand dollars is probably not enough to appreciate city employees, but it’s a start,” said 14th Ward Alderman Rasheen Aldridge, the bill’s sponsor. 
“We’re just trying to show to our employees that we’re thankful for all the great work they do.” 
The bonus will be on the June 5 paycheck. 
The city is covering the cost with money set aside in the current budget for raises that were never implemented. 
The bill also authorizes the 7% raise for firefighters triggered by the pay increase approved for police officers. 
Those departments, as well as appointed department directors and elected officials, will not receive the one-time payment. 
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: 16.1%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect16.1%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: 13.3%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%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: 10.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%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: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%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: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%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: 10.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion10.0%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: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 16.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice16.1%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%

180 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker23%attributed speech138writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRasheen Aldridge • 24 words • 0.0% coverageRasheen Aldridge • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rasheen Aldridge

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words100% of attributed speech21% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-21.0 ptsWriter: 21.0%Rasheen Aldridge: 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.