404 Media⁠48%

Our New FOIA Forum! 7/30, 1PM ET ⁠73%

By Joseph Cox⁠67%

7/23/2026, 11:52:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 23.2% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 437 faulty-reasoning hits from 293 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (5,996 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.60% of the article peer group.

It’s that time again! 
We’re planning our latest FOIA Forum, a live, hour-long or more interactive session where Joseph and Jason will teach you how to pry records from government agencies through public records requests. 
We’re planning this for Thursday, July 30th at 1PM ET. 
That's in just one week today! 
Add it to your calendar! 
So, what’s the FOIA Forum? 
We'll share our screen and show you specifically how we file FOIA requests. 
We take questions from the chat and incorporate those into our FOIAs in real-time. 
This time we're particularly focused on city council meetings. 
Jason watches a lot of these and has tips for more quickly navigating and finding information within them. 
He then does a bunch of public records requests based on what happened in the meeting. 
He'll explain all of this, from Flock to other topics too. 
If this will be your first FOIA Forum, don’t worry, we will do a quick primer on how to file requests (although if you do want to watch our previous FOIA Forums, the video archive is here). 
We really love talking directly to our community about something we are obsessed with (getting documents from governments) and showing other people how to do it too. 
Paid subscribers can already find the link to join the livestream below. 
We'll also send out a reminder a day or so before. 
Not a subscriber yet? 
Sign up now here in time to join. 
We've got a bunch of FOIAs that we need to file and are keen to hear from you all on what you want to see more of. 
Most of all, we want to teach you how to make your own too. 
Please consider coming along! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.2%Joseph Cox: 2.3%404 Media: 3.5%Confirmation Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.9%404 Media: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 5.7%404 Media: 3.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.8%404 Media: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.4%404 Media: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Joseph Cox: 1.6%404 Media: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias4.4%This article: 15.4%Joseph Cox: 13.2%404 Media: 5.6%Framing Effect15.4%This article: 4.4%Joseph Cox: 1.0%404 Media: 0.4%Loss Aversion4.4%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.5%404 Media: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.1%404 Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.6%Joseph Cox: 1.0%404 Media: 2.8%Optimism Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 3.5%404 Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 20.0%404 Media: 11.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.0%404 Media: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.4%404 Media: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Joseph Cox: 0.8%404 Media: 0.8%In-Group Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.9%404 Media: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Joseph Cox: 1.7%404 Media: 1.0%Recency Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.7%404 Media: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.2%404 Media: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.5%404 Media: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.1%404 Media: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.1%Joseph Cox: 4.0%404 Media: 3.3%Appeal to Authority6.1%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.4%404 Media: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.9%404 Media: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.5%Joseph Cox: 9.5%404 Media: 7.8%Hasty Generalization5.5%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.7%404 Media: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.1%Joseph Cox: 1.1%404 Media: 0.7%Bandwagon4.1%This article: 19.8%Joseph Cox: 6.3%404 Media: 4.8%Appeal to Emotion19.8%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.2%404 Media: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.8%404 Media: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.7%404 Media: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.3%404 Media: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.5%Joseph Cox: 2.2%404 Media: 2.9%Anecdotal5.5%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 4.6%404 Media: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 4.8%404 Media: 2.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.7%404 Media: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.7%Joseph Cox: 9.8%404 Media: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice13.7%This article: 23.2%Joseph Cox: 2.2%404 Media: 1.5%Indoctrination23.2%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.5%404 Media: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.2%404 Media: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Joseph Cox: 7.7%404 Media: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.3%

293 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker12%attributed speech259writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJason • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJason • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jason

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words100% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Indoctrination-26.3 ptsWriter: 26.3%Jason: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-15.4 ptsWriter: 15.4%Jason: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -12.7 ptsWriter: 12.7%Jason: 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.