BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Unattributed Quote, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 61.6% saturation with 369 hits. Analysis detected 1,878 faulty-reasoning hits from 599 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.1% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,819 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.70% of the article peer group.

A federal grand jury has issued a superseding indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), leveling shocking new allegations that the prominent far-left civil rights organization utilized tax-exempt donor funds to buy materials for Ku Klux Klan cross-burnings, robes, and hoods. 
The latest legal development, filed on Tuesday this week, expands upon an earlier federal fraud case initially brought by the U.S. 
Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 21st, which accuses the Alabama-based non-profit of running a multi-million dollar covert operation that financed the very extremist groups it publicly denounced. 
According to federal prosecutors, the organization defrauded its base of donors by secretly funneling $4.1 million into a network of active members and paid informants operating inside White supremacist and neo-Nazi organizations between 2010 and 2023. 
The freshly detailed indictment alleges that the SPLC’s secret financial network did not merely observe extremist groups from afar but actively cross-subsidized their operations. 
Federal authorities say that the organization financed the manufacturing of racist paraphernalia, organized meetings for extremist groups, and directly purchased supplies used to facilitate state and federal crimes, specifically citing Ku Klux Klan cross-burnings. 
The DOJ contends that by routing money through hidden bank accounts and prepaid debit cards to senior hate group figures  including the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America  the SPLC effectively sustained and promoted White supremacist networks to validate its corporate mission and fundraising appeals. 
The SPLC has since denied the criminal allegations, describing the prosecution as a politically motivated attack. 
SPLC leadership defended what they referred to as their “historical practice” of maintaining an “undercover informant network”  domestically referred to within the center as “the Fs” since the 1980s  arguing that infiltrating these networks was a “dangerous but necessary means to gather critical intelligence, counter violent threats and protect marginalized communities.” 
SPLC officials claim further that the intelligence gathered by their field sources was routinely turned over to federal and local law enforcement. 
According to the federal indictment, the Southern Poverty Law Center's “infiltration” of White supremacist organizations took a highly controversial turn in 2010 when two Ku Klux Klan members, designated in court documents as “F-31” and “F-32,” approached the nonprofit seeking an exit strategy from the hate group out of fear for their personal safety. 
However, rather than facilitating their departure or assisting them in transitioning away from extremism, prosecutors say that the SPLC actively incentivized the men to maintain their positions inside the Klan. 
To accomplish this, the organization established a shell corporation known as Rare Books Warehouse, which was used to funnel covert monthly stipends of $1,200 plus additional expense reimbursements to the two informants, ensuring their continued participation in the hate group's operations. 
The DOJ argues that this funding structure ultimately cross-subsidized illicit extremist activities, as a portion of the SPLC-provided funds was reportedly utilized by the informants to recruit new members into the Klan and finance the manufacturing of the group's signature white robes. 
While the SPLC’s practice of employing undercover field sources to monitor hate groups dates back to the 1980s, federal prosecutors argue that the modern operation crossed legal boundaries by intentionally deceiving the public. 
The indictment alleges that between 2014 and 2023, the nonprofit systematically used fictitious front companies to conceal a total of $4.1 million in secret payments to its network of informants, effectively hiding the controversial operational expenses from its donor base. 
Stay informed! 
Receive breaking news alerts directly to your inbox for free. 
Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.7%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 3.3%One America News Network: 4.6%Confirmation Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 1.2%One America News Network: 2.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.7%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 3.2%One America News Network: 3.9%Availability Heuristic18.7%This article: 7.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.8%One America News Network: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 1.9%One America News Network: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 3.6%One America News Network: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 17.7%One America News Network: 15.3%Framing Effect14.5%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.8%One America News Network: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 14.4%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.9%One America News Network: 1.1%Status Quo Bias14.4%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 4.7%One America News Network: 4.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 1.7%One America News Network: 1.8%Pessimism Bias7.0%This article: 61.6%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 13.6%One America News Network: 11.8%Negativity Bias61.6%This article: 15.2%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 3.2%One America News Network: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias15.2%This article: 8.2%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 1.6%One America News Network: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error8.2%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 3.3%One America News Network: 3.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 1.3%One America News Network: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 1.8%One America News Network: 5.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 1.0%One America News Network: 2.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.7%Primacy Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 3.0%One America News Network: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.7%One America News Network: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.7%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 5.0%One America News Network: 6.3%Appeal to Authority9.7%This article: 5.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 2.9%One America News Network: 1.8%False Dilemma5.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.9%One America News Network: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 5.7%One America News Network: 5.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 7.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.6%One America News Network: 0.5%Red Herring7.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 1.1%One America News Network: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 8.7%One America News Network: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion21.0%This article: 8.2%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 1.4%One America News Network: 1.7%Begging the Question8.2%This article: 6.8%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 3.4%One America News Network: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.8%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.7%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 1.1%One America News Network: 0.6%Burden of Proof4.7%This article: 8.8%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.2%Appeal to Nature8.8%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.6%One America News Network: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 1.9%One America News Network: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 5.5%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.3%Special Pleading5.5%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 21.7%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 2.5%One America News Network: 1.7%Unattributed Quote21.7%This article: 3.2%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 1.5%One America News Network: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.2%This article: 28.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 11.0%One America News Network: 5.2%Biased Writer Voice28.0%This article: 0.3%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.6%One America News Network: 1.1%Indoctrination0.3%This article: 3.2%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 0.7%One America News Network: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.2%This article: 7.0%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 6.8%One America News Network: 3.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.0%This article: 2.5%OAN Staff Brooke Mallory: 1.6%One America News Network: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.5%

599 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers35%attributed speech389writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice (DOJ) • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice (DOJ) • 49 words • 100.0% coverageSouthern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSouthern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) • 53 words • 100.0% coverageSouthern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice (DOJ) • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
91 attributed words43% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote+58.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): 58.2%58.2%Biased Writer Voice+28.7 ptsWriter: 29.6%Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): 58.2%58.2%Politically Right Leaning -10.8 ptsWriter: 10.8%Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-0.5 ptsWriter: 0.5%Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): 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.