David Hockney, renowned artist who captured fleeting moments in vivid color, dies at 88 ⁠73%

By Phil Davison⁠0%

6/12/2026, 10:22:16 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 72.1% saturation with 44 hits. Analysis detected 88 faulty-reasoning hits from 61 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (5,713 of 21,172 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.00% of the article peer group.

David Hockney, an English painter, photographer, stage designer, printmaker and draftsman who long made Southern California his muse and his home, and the fleeting beauty of life’s smallest moments the grand theme of his shape-shifting art, died June 11 at his home in London. 
He was 88. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 72.1%Phil Davison: 41.8%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect72.1%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 72.1%Phil Davison: 41.8%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice72.1%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Phil Davison: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

61 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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