Times-Picayune staffers win first place honors from Press Club of New Orleans 8%

By Violet Bucaro5%

7/21/2026, 12:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 40.1% saturation with 160 hits. Analysis detected 482 faulty-reasoning hits from 399 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.8% and a BS Rank of 8% (20,334 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 92.90% of the article peer group.

Staffers at The Times-Picayune | The Advocate claimed nine first-place prizes among 17 total awards Saturday at the 68th Press Club of New Orleans Excellence in Journalism Awards. 
Arthur Hardy's Mardi Gras Guide, owned by Georges Media Group, also earned four awards. 
“Our entire staff worked relentlessly for weeks to give readers deep coverage of the tragedy of the Bourbon Street attack. 
They showed an incredible commitment to public service journalism,” Rene Sanchez, executive editor of The Times-Picayune, said. 
The paper was awarded first place for its coverage of the Bourbon Street attack, receiving best in show in print, general news reporting and breaking news, which are among the competition's highest honors. 
The story that stood out was “15 seconds of terror: The untold story of Bourbon Street attack from those who lived through it,” by staff writers Blake Paterson, Mike Smith, Jeff Adelson and Josie Abugov, and featuring photos and graphics from Chris Granger and Dan Swenson. 
“Excellent narrative, bolstered by multimedia. 
Seriously wonderful storytelling,” a Press Club judge said. 
Photographer Sophia Germer was also acknowledged in five different awards, celebrating photos that captured everything from the aftermath of a two-alarm fire in the Lower 9th Ward to a dog cosplaying Lady Gaga at a Mardi Gras parade. 
Award winners from The Times-Picayune: 
Best in show in print (Alex Walker Award): staff 
Best general news reporting: first place, staff 
Best in print (Billy Rainey Memorial Award): staff 
Best cover: first place, staff 
Best breaking news reporting: first place, staff 
Best feature story: second place; Doug MacCash, Chris Granger 
Best continuing coverage: first place; Mike Smith, David Grunfeld and Dan Swenson 
Best investigative reporting: second place, Sam Karlin 
Best environmental science reporting: first place; Alex Lubben, Sophia Germer 
Best governmental political reporting: third place, Tyler Bridges 
Best business reporting: second place; Stephanie Riegel, Sophia Germer 
Best lifestyle reporting: third place; Ian McNulty, David Grunfeld 
Best critical review: first place, Rien Fertel 
Best column: first place, Stephanie Grace 
Best sports photo: first place, Sophia Germer 
Best multi-photo feature: third place, Sophia Germer 
Best portrait: first place, Sophia Germer 
Awards from Arthur Hardy’s Mardi Gras Guide: 
Best editorial: second place; Arthur Hardy, Donn Lee Keith 
Best layout design: third place; David Johnson, Arthur Hardy 
Best editorial illustration: first place; Arthur Hardy, David Johnson 
Best magazine: first place, Arthur Hardy 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.0%Violet Bucaro: 2.3%nola.com: 2.4%Confirmation Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.5%Violet Bucaro: 3.2%nola.com: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic9.5%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 4.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 3.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 3.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Violet Bucaro: 7.6%nola.com: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 3.1%nola.com: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 19.5%Violet Bucaro: 6.5%nola.com: 3.0%Halo Effect19.5%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Violet Bucaro: 1.0%nola.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.3%Violet Bucaro: 3.4%nola.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority10.3%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 2.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.8%Violet Bucaro: 4.6%nola.com: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion13.8%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%Violet Bucaro: 0.4%nola.com: 2.2%Unattributed Quote1.3%This article: 2.0%Violet Bucaro: 1.5%nola.com: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 40.1%Violet Bucaro: 13.4%nola.com: 2.4%Biased Writer Voice40.1%This article: 5.0%Violet Bucaro: 1.7%nola.com: 0.4%Indoctrination5.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Violet Bucaro: 0.0%nola.com: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

399 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.3%attributed speech362writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageRene Sanchez • 20 words • 100.0% coverageRene Sanchez • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 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 • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rene Sanchez

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words100% of attributed speech51% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Indoctrination+54.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Rene Sanchez: 54.1%54.1%Biased Writer Voice+6.4 ptsWriter: 39.5%Rene Sanchez: 45.9%45.9%Quote-first Misdirection-2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Rene Sanchez: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.4 ptsWriter: 1.4%Rene Sanchez: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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