Staten Island v. New York City With Revisionist History ⁠60%

By Reveal⁠78%

7/22/2026, 10:01:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Framing Effect, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 40.5% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 284 faulty-reasoning hits from 220 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠60% (8,468 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.00% of the article peer group.

This week, we’re bringing you a special episode from Revisionist History, Malcolm Gladwell’s podcast about things overlooked and misunderstood. 
Gladwell’s show recently investigated what was once the biggest secession movement in the US since the Civil War: the movement by disillusioned residents in Staten Island to secede from New York City. 
“The Staten Island Problem,” Revisionist History’s newest five-part series, reconstructs the battle for New York during the turbulent early 1990s—the rise of Rudy Giuliani, the peak of the homicide rate, the Wu-Tang Clan, young Donald Trump, and the first Black mayor of New York—all through the prism of the city’s oft-forgotten borough. 
Why tell this story now? 
Because the island’s secession movement is an early example of the politics of resentment that dominates America today. 
The first episode of “The Staten Island Problem” tells the story of David Dinkins, the first Black mayor of New York, facing off with the borough president of Staten Island all while trying to hold his city together. 
Revisionist History and “The Staten Island Problem” are produced by Pushkin Industries. 
Check out the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or your favorite podcast app. 
Find More To The Story on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Pandora, or your favorite podcast app, and don’t forget to subscribe. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.0%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.2%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 4.7%Mother Jones: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.7%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.5%Mother Jones: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.6%Reveal: 13.7%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect23.6%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 2.1%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.2%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 4.6%Mother Jones: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 13.6%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.7%Mother Jones: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 2.7%Mother Jones: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.7%Mother Jones: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 2.5%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.5%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 2.6%Mother Jones: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.0%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 2.2%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.7%Reveal: 7.0%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization22.7%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 11.2%Mother Jones: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.7%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.2%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 3.9%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.8%Mother Jones: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 3.0%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.4%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 40.5%Reveal: 9.3%Mother Jones: 9.3%Biased Writer Voice40.5%This article: 9.5%Reveal: 5.3%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination9.5%This article: 8.2%Reveal: 4.7%Mother Jones: 4.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 24.5%Reveal: 10.9%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…24.5%

220 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.