How to make Los Angeles government work for my community ⁠86%

By Iris Lee⁠0% Vanessa Martinez⁠0% Joy Park⁠0% Alex Tatusian⁠0% Matthew Ballinger⁠0% Hanna Sender⁠0% Phi Do⁠0%

10/18/2022, 7:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Biased Writer Voice, and Indoctrination, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 46.3% saturation with 44 hits. Analysis detected 235 faulty-reasoning hits from 95 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 77.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠86% (3,251 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.20% of the article peer group.

Do you know your local representatives and how to reach out to them? 
Are you looking to throw a block party, get your trashed hauled away or add an ADU to your house? 
The Los Angeles Times “Shape Your L.A.” project aims to help Angelenos get stuff done — in your neighborhood and beyond. 
Learn who to talk to in government when you want to get things done in your neighborhood. 
Get involved in your community with the help of our people’s guide to power. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 21.1%Iris Lee: 10.5%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic21.1%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 46.3%Iris Lee: 23.2%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect46.3%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 17.9%Iris Lee: 20.0%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias17.9%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Iris Lee: 7.4%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 22.1%Iris Lee: 11.1%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect22.1%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Iris Lee: 6.8%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect13.7%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 17.9%Iris Lee: 8.9%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning17.9%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 28.4%Iris Lee: 14.2%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice28.4%This article: 28.4%Iris Lee: 30.5%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination28.4%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Iris Lee: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 36.8%Iris Lee: 29.5%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…36.8%

95 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker22%attributed speech74writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Times • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Los Angeles Times

100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +81.1 ptsWriter: 18.9%Los Angeles Times: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-36.5 ptsWriter: 36.5%Los Angeles Times: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-36.5 ptsWriter: 36.5%Los Angeles Times: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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