BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Framing Effect, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 49.4% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 567 faulty-reasoning hits from 162 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.7% and a BS Rank of 83% (3,630 of 20,513 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.30% of the article peer group.

The Seattle Times investigative team seeks to hold the powerful to account and expose injustices through meticulous reporting and compelling storytelling. 
Using every journalistic tool available, the team is dedicated to making Seattle, Washington state and the Pacific Northwest more transparent, fair and just. 
Lynnwood teacher accused of inappropriate touching kept in classroom for 20 months 
A school district didn’t investigate for a year after the first complaint about a special-education teacher and did not interview students. 
Then a student reported sexual assault. 
Answers to your questions about The Seattle Times’ investigative journalism 
The Seattle Times' investigative team works on behalf of the public to hold the powerful to account and expose injustices. 
In this FAQ, we answer reader questions about our reporting processes and ethical policies. 
Investigative journalism fund - supporting journalism that holds power accountable and drives change 
Visit our page to learn more about our mission, our team, how to send a tip, and our recent awards 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%Claire Bryan: 4.7%The Seattle Times: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias14.2%This article: 34.0%Claire Bryan: 11.3%The Seattle Times: 6.8%Framing Effect34.0%This article: 8.0%Claire Bryan: 2.7%The Seattle Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion8.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 22.2%Claire Bryan: 7.4%The Seattle Times: 9.0%Optimism Bias22.2%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 49.4%Claire Bryan: 24.5%The Seattle Times: 14.2%Negativity Bias49.4%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 39.5%Claire Bryan: 17.9%The Seattle Times: 3.3%Halo Effect39.5%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.4%Claire Bryan: 2.5%The Seattle Times: 2.3%Recency Bias7.4%This article: 8.6%Claire Bryan: 2.9%The Seattle Times: 1.1%Primacy Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.3%Claire Bryan: 4.1%The Seattle Times: 1.7%Appeal to Authority12.3%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 4.3%The Seattle Times: 1.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.0%Claire Bryan: 2.7%The Seattle Times: 1.0%Bandwagon8.0%This article: 7.4%Claire Bryan: 2.5%The Seattle Times: 0.3%Appeal to Emotion7.4%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 24.7%Claire Bryan: 8.2%The Seattle Times: 4.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)24.7%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 13.0%Claire Bryan: 4.3%The Seattle Times: 0.5%Burden of Proof13.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 25.3%Claire Bryan: 8.4%The Seattle Times: 3.5%Anecdotal25.3%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 7.4%Claire Bryan: 2.5%The Seattle Times: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection7.4%This article: 25.3%Claire Bryan: 36.8%The Seattle Times: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice25.3%This article: 14.2%Claire Bryan: 12.1%The Seattle Times: 1.3%Indoctrination14.2%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Bryan: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 29.0%Claire Bryan: 16.5%The Seattle Times: 2.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…29.0%

162 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker12%attributed speech142writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageThe Seattle Times • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Seattle Times

100%flagged-word coverage
20 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+85.2 ptsWriter: 14.8%The Seattle Times: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -33.1 ptsWriter: 33.1%The Seattle Times: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-16.2 ptsWriter: 16.2%The Seattle Times: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.5 ptsWriter: 8.5%The Seattle Times: 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.