Can Subsidies Bring Film Production Back to the USA? 97%

By Sonny Bunch79%

7/17/2026, 10:03:04 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 39.2% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 526 faulty-reasoning hits from 130 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 95.4% and a BS Rank of 97% (681 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 96.90% of the article peer group.

On this week’s episode, I’m rejoined by Chris Fenton to discuss efforts to pass a federal tax credit that would help reshore American film production and his own made-in-America film, Bad Counselors, which hits theaters next week. 
Things got a little spicy as we debated some of the downsides of these programs—and, specifically, how they might come to pass; I think the federal government should be working for all of America on this issue rather than picking winners and losers tby state—but something clearly needs to be done. 
Film production and the culture industry more broadly is one of the great American exports, and we’ll all be better off if we can find a way to keep those jobs in America. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 1.3%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 4.8%The Bulwark: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 39.2%Sonny Bunch: 17.0%The Bulwark: 6.8%Framing Effect39.2%This article: 25.4%Sonny Bunch: 1.9%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion25.4%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 39.2%Sonny Bunch: 8.4%The Bulwark: 1.5%Optimism Bias39.2%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 3.8%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 39.2%Sonny Bunch: 14.5%The Bulwark: 11.2%Negativity Bias39.2%This article: 25.4%Sonny Bunch: 1.9%The Bulwark: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias25.4%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 9.5%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 3.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 4.8%The Bulwark: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 5.3%The Bulwark: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 7.3%The Bulwark: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 16.7%The Bulwark: 8.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 3.5%The Bulwark: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 39.2%Sonny Bunch: 9.6%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion39.2%This article: 25.4%Sonny Bunch: 8.4%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question25.4%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 39.2%Sonny Bunch: 3.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground39.2%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 39.2%Sonny Bunch: 3.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Special Pleading39.2%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 39.2%Sonny Bunch: 25.9%The Bulwark: 15.3%Biased Writer Voice39.2%This article: 25.4%Sonny Bunch: 4.7%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination25.4%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 7.3%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 1.3%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 28.5%Sonny Bunch: 17.8%The Bulwark: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…28.5%

130 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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