WPLN News⁠12%

NashVillager Podcast: A dark anniversary ⁠23%

By Nina Cardona⁠8%

7/16/2026, 4:58:45 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Hindsight Bias, Framing Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Representativeness Heuristic as the most egregious example at 21.8% saturation with 19 hits. Analysis detected 133 faulty-reasoning hits from 87 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠23% (17,025 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.80% of the article peer group.

What lead a man to kill five people in two attacks on Chattanooga military facilities in 2015? 
This date was a deadly one in Tennessee eleven years ago, with some parallels to another shooting in 2025. 
Plus the local news for July 16, 2026 and the importance of DJs to Nashville R&B. 
Credits: 
This is a production of Nashville Public Radio. 
Host/producer: Nina Cardona 
Editor: LaTonya Turner 
Additional support: Mack Linebaugh, Tony Gonzalez, Megan Jones and the staff of WPLN and WNXP 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.5%Nina Cardona: 5.2%WPLN: 3.8%Availability Heuristic19.5%This article: 21.8%Nina Cardona: 2.6%WPLN: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic21.8%This article: 21.8%Nina Cardona: 2.5%WPLN: 0.3%Hindsight Bias21.8%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 21.8%Nina Cardona: 9.6%WPLN: 4.0%Framing Effect21.8%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.2%WPLN: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.4%WPLN: 1.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Nina Cardona: 8.0%WPLN: 7.4%Negativity Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.7%WPLN: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.9%WPLN: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 18.4%Nina Cardona: 1.5%WPLN: 0.2%Primacy Effect18.4%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.2%Nina Cardona: 2.2%WPLN: 3.2%Appeal to Authority9.2%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.0%WPLN: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.9%WPLN: 3.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.1%WPLN: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 19.5%Nina Cardona: 1.8%WPLN: 0.8%Burden of Proof19.5%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.1%WPLN: 2.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.4%WPLN: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.5%WPLN: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.1%WPLN: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.1%WPLN: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.7%Nina Cardona: 2.0%WPLN: 1.9%Biased Writer Voice5.7%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.7%WPLN: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Nina Cardona: 2.9%WPLN: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.2%

87 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers33%attributed speech58writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageNashville Public Radio • 8 words • 100.0% coverageNina Cardona • 3 words • 0.0% coverageLaTonya Turner • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWPLN and WNXP • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
8 attributed words28% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nashville Public Radio: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%Nashville Public Radio: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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