KESQ76%

Coachella Valley reacts to Sunshine Protection Act 51%

By Matthew Pearce68%

7/18/2026, 9:29:43 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Hindsight Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 44.6% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 200 faulty-reasoning hits from 101 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.5% and a BS Rank of 51% (10,876 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.30% of the article peer group.

THOUSAND PALMS, Calif. 
(KESQ)  In a bipartisan vote, the U.S. 
House advanced the 'Sunshine Protection Act,' a bill that would make daylight saving time permanent and end the twice-yearly clock changes. 
Versions of the proposal have been introduced numerous times in state legislatures and in Congress over the years but have repeatedly fallen short. 
Now, with support from President Donald Trump, the measure is headed to the Senate for consideration. 
News Channel 3 is hearing from residents across the Coachella Valley to hear their thoughts on the topic. 
Stay tuned for more tonight. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 22.8%Matthew Pearce: 7.6%KESQ: 7.6%Availability Heuristic22.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 22.8%Matthew Pearce: 7.6%KESQ: 7.6%Hindsight Bias22.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 44.6%Matthew Pearce: 14.9%KESQ: 14.9%Framing Effect44.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 7.6%KESQ: 7.6%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 5.3%KESQ: 5.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.8%Matthew Pearce: 13.2%KESQ: 13.2%Appeal to Authority23.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.8%Matthew Pearce: 7.6%KESQ: 7.6%Hasty Generalization22.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 15.8%Matthew Pearce: 5.3%KESQ: 5.3%Bandwagon15.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 5.9%KESQ: 5.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 22.8%Matthew Pearce: 9.2%KESQ: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice22.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Pearce: 0.0%KESQ: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 22.8%Matthew Pearce: 7.6%KESQ: 7.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…22.8%

101 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers34%attributed speech67writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coveragePresident Donald Trump • 16 words • 0.0% coverageNews Channel 3 • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
16 attributed words47% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.3 ptsWriter: 34.3%President Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%President Donald Trump: 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.