July 21, 2026 0%

By Cascade PBS Staff49%

7/22/2026, 12:15:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 0 faulty reasoning types, including no named faulty reasoning patterns yet, with no single egregious example has been isolated yet. Analysis detected 0 faulty-reasoning hits from 61 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (20,488 of 20,498 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

Fmr. 
U.S. 
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reacts to the latest developments out of the Iran war. 
Rep. 
Mark Pocan discusses the suffering he saw on a recent trip to Cuba. 
Prof. 
Radley Horton unpacks the current climate crisis. 
Adrian Wooldridge discusses his new book "The Revolutionary Center" and what the word "liberal" really means in our politics today. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.8%Cascade PBS: 3.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.1%Cascade PBS: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.9%Cascade PBS: 5.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.2%Cascade PBS: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 15.5%Cascade PBS: 16.8%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.9%Cascade PBS: 0.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.1%Cascade PBS: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 15.7%Cascade PBS: 20.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 9.3%Cascade PBS: 7.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 6.5%Cascade PBS: 4.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 8.7%Cascade PBS: 8.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.5%Cascade PBS: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 5.0%Cascade PBS: 6.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.7%Cascade PBS: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.6%Cascade PBS: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.0%Cascade PBS: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.4%Cascade PBS: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 6.4%Cascade PBS: 9.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.7%Cascade PBS: 3.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.9%Cascade PBS: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 11.7%Cascade PBS: 9.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 3.3%Cascade PBS: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.2%Cascade PBS: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

61 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers89%attributed speech7writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hagel • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageMark Pocan • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageRadley Horton • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAdrian Wooldridge • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Adrian Wooldridge

0%flagged-word coverage
20 attributed words37% of attributed speech0% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.