WPLN News⁠12%

NashVillager Podcast: Goodbye Hollywood, hello Nashville? ⁠17%

By Nina Cardona⁠8%

7/20/2026, 12:03:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Framing Effect, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 30% saturation with 24 hits. Analysis detected 152 faulty-reasoning hits from 80 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠17% (17,218 of 20,516 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.90% of the article peer group.

Could Music City become a Film City, too? 
Tennessee officials have made some attempt to lure a major motion picture studio to relocate here. 
That raises questions about what a move might actually bring. 
Plus, the local news for July 20, 2026, and IMAX. 
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: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.0%Nina Cardona: 5.2%WPLN: 4.0%Availability Heuristic20.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.6%WPLN: 1.2%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: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Nina Cardona: 9.6%WPLN: 4.0%Framing Effect17.5%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.2%WPLN: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 2.8%Optimism Bias10.0%This article: 7.5%Nina Cardona: 0.4%WPLN: 1.0%Pessimism Bias7.5%This article: 12.5%Nina Cardona: 8.0%WPLN: 7.6%Negativity Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 12.5%Nina Cardona: 0.7%WPLN: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error12.5%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: 10.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 2.6%Halo Effect10.0%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: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Nina Cardona: 1.5%WPLN: 0.2%Primacy Effect7.5%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: 30.0%Nina Cardona: 2.2%WPLN: 3.3%Appeal to Authority30.0%This article: 7.5%Nina Cardona: 2.0%WPLN: 1.1%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.9%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: 4.2%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: 0.4%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: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.5%Nina Cardona: 1.8%WPLN: 0.9%Burden of Proof12.5%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: 3.2%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: 10.0%Nina Cardona: 0.5%WPLN: 0.1%Middle Ground10.0%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: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.1%WPLN: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.5%Nina Cardona: 2.0%WPLN: 2.0%Biased Writer Voice7.5%This article: 12.5%Nina Cardona: 0.7%WPLN: 1.0%Indoctrination12.5%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.5%Nina Cardona: 2.9%WPLN: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…12.5%

80 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers36%attributed speech51writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 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
100%flagged-word coverage
8 attributed words28% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Indoctrination-19.6 ptsWriter: 19.6%Nashville Public Radio: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -19.6 ptsWriter: 19.6%Nashville Public Radio: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.8 ptsWriter: 11.8%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…

Analysis

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