WPLN News⁠12%

NashVillager Podcast: Andrew Jackson, Spanish oath-taker? ⁠20%

By Nina Cardona⁠8%

7/15/2026, 4:40:10 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Biased Writer Voice, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Status Quo Bias as the most egregious example at 22.2% saturation with 18 hits. Analysis detected 112 faulty-reasoning hits from 81 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠20% (17,646 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.60% of the article peer group.

Could Jackson have become president amid today’s citizenship and immigration debates? 
There once was a time when an American could swear allegiance to another nation and still become president. 
Plus, the local news for July 15, 2026, and this week’s edition of What Where Whens-day. 
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: 13.6%Nina Cardona: 5.2%WPLN: 3.8%Availability Heuristic13.6%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.6%WPLN: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.5%WPLN: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Nina Cardona: 9.6%WPLN: 4.0%Framing Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 22.2%Nina Cardona: 1.2%WPLN: 0.7%Status Quo Bias22.2%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: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 8.0%WPLN: 7.4%Negativity Bias0.0%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: 9.9%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 2.4%Halo Effect9.9%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: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.5%WPLN: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%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: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.2%WPLN: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 13.6%Nina Cardona: 2.0%WPLN: 1.0%False Dilemma13.6%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: 22.2%Nina Cardona: 2.9%WPLN: 3.9%Hasty Generalization22.2%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: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.8%WPLN: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%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: 7.4%Nina Cardona: 0.4%WPLN: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.4%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: 22.2%Nina Cardona: 2.0%WPLN: 1.9%Biased Writer Voice22.2%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: 19.8%Nina Cardona: 2.9%WPLN: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…19.8%

81 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers43%attributed speech46writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Nash Public Radio • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageNashville Public Radio • 8 words • 0.0% coverageNina Cardona • 3 words • 0.0% coverageLaTonya Turner • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWPLN and WNXP • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nash Public Radio

100%flagged-word coverage
6 attributed words17% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-39.1 ptsWriter: 39.1%Nash Public Radio: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -34.8 ptsWriter: 34.8%Nash 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.