STLPR0%

Federally funded demos begin in St. Louis tornado’s path 18%

By Kate Grumke53%

5/14/2026, 1:04:44 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect and Availability Heuristic, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 13.2% saturation with 33 hits. Analysis detected 89 faulty-reasoning hits from 250 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.9% and a BS Rank of 18% (18,130 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.80% of the article peer group.

St. 
Louis announced a new wave of demolitions is now starting in the path of the May 16 tornado. 
The state began demolishing homes that are eligible for reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Thursday. 
“Demolishing the buildings that can’t be salvaged doesn’t make the community whole, but it does mean we’re seeing long-awaited progress and clearing a path for rebuilding,” Mayor Cara Spencer said in a statement. 
Both city and state demolition programs in the path of the May 16 tornado are now fully active, according to Spencer’s office. 
Missouri Gov. 
Mike Kehoe announced the state would be overseeing private property debris removal in September, after the Federal Emergency Management Agency denied St. 
Louis’ request to have the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers handle the work. 
In March, the state finalized contractors for the project. 
This is the first time Missouri has been responsible for procuring these services directly, according to a spokesperson for the State Emergency Management Agency. 
Spencer’s office said up to 65 homes are in the pipeline for this project. 
The work began with two properties in the Fountain Park and Academy neighborhoods. 
On Monday, St. 
Louis announced it was beginning demolitions of 120 homes that are not eligible for federal reimbursement with funds from the Missouri legislature. 
The majority of those homes were vacant and condemned before the May 16 tornado. 
A city spokesperson said 36 of those demolitions are actively underway or complete. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Kate Grumke: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic9.6%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Kate Grumke: 6.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect12.8%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.2%Kate Grumke: 5.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias13.2%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 8.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 4.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 4.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 3.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 3.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

250 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker13%attributed speech217writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cara Spencer

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words100% of attributed speech26% 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…

Analysis

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