How the Screen Has Changed Us - by Sonny Bunch ⁠24%

By Sonny Bunch⁠79%

7/10/2026, 10:03:15 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Framing Effect, and Negativity Bias, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 16.4% saturation with 36 hits. Analysis detected 259 faulty-reasoning hits from 220 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠24% (16,211 of 21,120 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.80% of the article peer group.

How the Screen Has Changed Us 
Current time: 0:00 / Total time: -44:58 
Audio playback is not supported on your browser. 
Please upgrade. 
Photo Illustration by Sarah Rogers/The Bulwark | Photos Getty, Shutterstock 
On this week’s episode, I’m rejoined by renowned critic and film historian David Thomson to discuss his new book, A Sudden Flicker of Light: A Revisionist History of Movies . 
It’s a bracing tome, given its thesis: That the film screen has fundamentally altered who we are and how we interact with the world, in ways mostly negative. 
I’ll have more on this book in my newsletter this week, but I really hope you pick it up; there’s a lot to chew on in it. 
Discussion about this episode 
Sonny Bunch on movies, technology, and understanding the next Hollywood 
Comcast and NBC Universal Are Breaking Up: What Does That Mean? 
The Increasing Entanglements of Hollywood and AI 
Jun 26 • Sonny Bunch 
The Mount Rushmore of TV 
Jun 19 • Sonny Bunch 
The Wild West of 1980s Movie Financing 
Jun 12 • Sonny Bunch 
Bringing ‘Day of the Dead’ Back to Life 
Three Movies to Prep For Our Viral Apocalypse 
May 29 • Sonny Bunch 
Turning Sex and Dragons Into Streaming Money 
May 22 • Sonny Bunch 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 1.3%The Bulwark: 5.7%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: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%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: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.7%Sonny Bunch: 17.0%The Bulwark: 6.9%Framing Effect12.7%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 1.9%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%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: 12.3%Sonny Bunch: 8.4%The Bulwark: 1.6%Optimism Bias12.3%This article: 16.4%Sonny Bunch: 3.8%The Bulwark: 2.3%Pessimism Bias16.4%This article: 12.7%Sonny Bunch: 14.5%The Bulwark: 11.4%Negativity Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 1.9%The Bulwark: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%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: 1.6%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: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.6%Sonny Bunch: 5.3%The Bulwark: 3.5%Appeal to Authority13.6%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 7.3%The Bulwark: 2.3%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: 12.7%Sonny Bunch: 16.7%The Bulwark: 8.4%Hasty Generalization12.7%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 3.5%The Bulwark: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 9.6%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 8.4%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.6%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: 2.2%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: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 3.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 3.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%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: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonny Bunch: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 12.7%Sonny Bunch: 25.9%The Bulwark: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice12.7%This article: 12.3%Sonny Bunch: 4.7%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination12.3%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: 12.3%Sonny Bunch: 17.8%The Bulwark: 4.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…12.3%

220 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.