Newsmax75%

Ohio State Will Pay $100 Million to Sexual Assault Victims 28%

By Sam Barron0%

6/5/2026, 12:40:22 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, In-Group Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.6% saturation with 138 hits. Analysis detected 694 faulty-reasoning hits from 377 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.7% and a BS Rank of 28% (15,914 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.70% of the article peer group.

The Ohio State University has agreed to pay $100 million to 279 students who allege they were sexually abused by a former athletic team doctor. 
The settlement was approved by the university’s board of trustees in a meeting Wednesday night. 
The university previously paid out $61 million to 317 people who said they were abused by Dr. 
Richard Stratuss, who served as team doctor from 1979 until he was fired in 1996. 
He later died by suicide in 2005. 
“The survivors of the Strauss abuse are all Buckeyes, will always be a part of our family and our community, and I firmly believe that,” Ohio State President Ravi Bellamkonda said. 
“We continue to be grateful for their courage in coming forward.” 
In a joint statement Wednesday, the university and plaintiffs thanked mediators and said they were working to finalize the details of the settlements. 
Ohio State already had settled with 317 survivors for more than $61 million, the school had said. 
Many former student athletes signed sealed agreements that kept their names a secret. 
Some former NFL players were among the victims, according to a lawyer in one of the lawsuits. 
The settlement comes after more than 30 former Ohio State football players joined the lawsuit and the university suffered several unfavorable rulings ahead of an October trial date. 
“A trial would have been ugly. 
It would have been terrible for the university and it would have done damage to our football program,” State Sen. 
Bill DeMora told the New York Times said. 
“I think the judge’s decisions had a lot to do with it,” said State Senator Bill DeMora, whose district includes Ohio State. 
“A trial would have been ugly. 
It would have been terrible for the university and it would have done damage to our football program.” 
Years ago, an independent report had concluded that scores of Ohio State personnel knew of complaints about Strauss’ conduct as early as 1979 but failed for years to investigate or take meaningful action. 
“It’s ludicrous that it took this long,” DeMora told the Times. 
“I’m happy the university is done with the stain of this chapter and that there’s some closure for the victims of this horrible abuse.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.8%Sam Barron: 2.5%Newsmax: 3.4%Confirmation Bias5.8%This article: 4.5%Sam Barron: 0.6%Newsmax: 0.9%Anchoring Bias4.5%This article: 15.1%Sam Barron: 2.8%Newsmax: 3.2%Availability Heuristic15.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.3%Newsmax: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.4%Sam Barron: 0.7%Newsmax: 0.5%Hindsight Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 8.8%Newsmax: 3.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 8.1%Newsmax: 11.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 1.1%Newsmax: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.5%Newsmax: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.6%Sam Barron: 5.3%Newsmax: 4.1%Optimism Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.9%Newsmax: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 36.6%Sam Barron: 6.9%Newsmax: 10.3%Negativity Bias36.6%This article: 2.9%Sam Barron: 2.9%Newsmax: 3.0%Self-Serving Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 1.9%Newsmax: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 18.3%Sam Barron: 15.2%Newsmax: 2.7%In-Group Bias18.3%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 1.7%Newsmax: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Sam Barron: 5.4%Newsmax: 2.0%Halo Effect8.2%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 1.1%Newsmax: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.5%Newsmax: 1.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.9%Newsmax: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 1.7%Newsmax: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 1.2%Newsmax: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.3%Sam Barron: 3.3%Newsmax: 4.8%Appeal to Authority10.3%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 1.4%Newsmax: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.7%Newsmax: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.5%Newsmax: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.8%Sam Barron: 10.8%Newsmax: 4.2%Hasty Generalization8.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.7%Newsmax: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 1.6%Newsmax: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 33.7%Sam Barron: 11.7%Newsmax: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion33.7%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 1.5%Newsmax: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.4%Sam Barron: 1.9%Newsmax: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 1.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.2%Newsmax: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.2%Newsmax: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 1.0%Newsmax: 0.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%Sam Barron: 1.2%Newsmax: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.9%Newsmax: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.2%Sam Barron: 0.9%Newsmax: 3.1%Unattributed Quote3.2%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 1.1%Newsmax: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.0%Sam Barron: 2.2%Newsmax: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice5.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 4.4%Newsmax: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 4.3%Newsmax: 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Barron: 3.0%Newsmax: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

377 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers39%attributed speech230writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageRavi Bellamkonda • 31 words • 0.0% coverageRavi Bellamkonda • 11 words • 100.0% coverageOhio State University • 23 words • 0.0% coverageOhio State University • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageBill DeMora • 8 words • 100.0% coverageBill DeMora • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageBill DeMora • 11 words • 0.0% coverageBill DeMora • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ravi Bellamkonda

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words29% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice+26.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ravi Bellamkonda: 26.2%26.2%Unattributed Quote-5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Ravi Bellamkonda: 0.0%0.0%

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.