Why most politicians are not calling for data center bans despite voters’ anger ⁠92%

By Liz Goodwin⁠0% Riley Beggin⁠0%

6/7/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 77.3% saturation with 92 hits. Analysis detected 355 faulty-reasoning hits from 119 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠92% (1,886 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.40% of the article peer group.

HILLIARD, OHIO — Annette Singh and Annie Cannelongo will vote in November in this midterm battleground with one issue at the top of their minds: data centers. 
The full-time moms say their fury over the massive computer-filled warehouses has consumed them ever since Amazon Web Services broke ground on a data center site that stretches from the lush playground their kids use close to the elementary school that Singh’s child attends. 
Singh can no longer see deer peeking out from the trees and farmland that used to abut the park, and Cannelongo, her friend, laments that she can now hear the roaring highway from her house. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 4.2%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 1.5%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 37.0%Liz Goodwin: 9.5%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic37.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 2.6%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 1.5%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.6%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Liz Goodwin: 17.6%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect10.9%This article: 29.4%Liz Goodwin: 3.2%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion29.4%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 1.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 2.3%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 77.3%Liz Goodwin: 25.4%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias77.3%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 1.4%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 2.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 3.1%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 1.4%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.8%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 3.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 3.4%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 3.2%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.6%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.9%Liz Goodwin: 8.1%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization10.9%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 37.0%Liz Goodwin: 7.6%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion37.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.8%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 29.4%Liz Goodwin: 15.7%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal29.4%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 3.4%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 2.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 66.4%Liz Goodwin: 10.5%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice66.4%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liz Goodwin: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

119 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.