The City Club Forum ⁠9%

7/17/2026, 6:05:31 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 42.6% saturation with 66 hits. Analysis detected 229 faulty-reasoning hits from 155 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠9% (19,966 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.20% of the article peer group.

The City Club of Cleveland firmly believes in the free expression of all ideas and the benefits of an open exchange. 
It is nonpartisan and does not take positions on issues. 
All speakers must answer unfiltered, unrehearsed questions directly from the audience. 
In partnership with The City Club of Cleveland, ideastream broadcasts Friday Forums, panel discussions, debates and other programs on WKSU, WCLV, WVIZ and The Ohio Channel, and archives them on the web. 
Broadcast Schedule 
Radio 
WKSU: Fridays at 12 p.m. 
WCLV: Sundays at 10 p.m. 
Television 
WVIZ: Sundays at 10 a.m. 
The Ohio Channel: Mondays at 4 p.m. 
Live Video Stream 
Watch the City Club Forum live during the broadcast - view now! 
Live video stream available during Friday broadcast, 12 p.m. 
(EST). 
Ways To Subscribe 
Apple 
Overcast 
RSS 
Spotify 
TuneIn 
Generous support for this partnership is provided by <i>PNC</i> and the <i>United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland, Inc.</i> 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 1.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.6%Ideastream Public Media: 3.4%Framing Effect20.6%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 3.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 1.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Ideastream Public Media: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Ideastream Public Media: 0.9%In-Group Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 25.2%Ideastream Public Media: 9.0%Halo Effect25.2%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 2.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.7%Ideastream Public Media: 2.1%Appeal to Emotion7.7%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.5%Ideastream Public Media: 5.4%Biased Writer Voice13.5%This article: 7.1%Ideastream Public Media: 4.2%Indoctrination7.1%This article: 6.5%Ideastream Public Media: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.5%This article: 6.5%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.5%This article: 42.6%Ideastream Public Media: 7.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…42.6%

155 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers59%attributed speech63writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageThe City Club of Cleveland • 21 words • 100.0% coverageThe City Club of Cleveland • 10 words • 100.0% coverageThe City Club of Cleveland • 11 words • 100.0% coverageideastream • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coveragePNC • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

PNC

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words20% of attributed speech25% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +74.6 ptsWriter: 25.4%PNC: 100.0%100.0%

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.