The Stratos Project and the Battle Over Utah's AI Future 48%

5/13/2026, 8:28:13 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Primacy Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32% saturation with 62 hits. Analysis detected 560 faulty-reasoning hits from 194 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49% and a BS Rank of 48% (11,527 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.70% of the article peer group.

The Stratos Project, a massive data center planned for Box Elder County, has run up against equally massive public opposition, even as state officials champion its benefits. 
A panel of local journalists joins us to help make sense of the debate. 
Concerns have been raised about the project's water consumption, its colossal power use, the rushed nature of its approval, not to mention its sheer size. 
But Gov. 
Spencer Cox says those worries miss the point. 
Americans, he recently said, need to wake up to the fact that the country is in a high-stakes race for AI dominance, and data centers are necessary to win that battle. 
Local reporters Hugo Rikard-Bell, Leia Larsen and Brigham Tomco join us to explain what's going on with the Stratos Project and where it's headed from here. 
GUESTS 
Gabi Finlayson | Senior partner at Elevate Strategies, a Democratic political consulting firm. 
Hugo Rickard-Bell | KUER politics reporter and co-host of the podcast "State Street". 
Leia Larsen | Water and land use reporter, Salt Lake Tribune. 
Brigham Tomco | Staff writer, Deseret News. 
Airdate: May 14 and 16, 2026 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.0%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias18.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 21.1%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect21.1%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 32.0%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias32.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 16.0%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias16.0%This article: 20.6%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect20.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 16.0%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma16.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.9%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization12.9%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 16.0%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon16.0%This article: 16.0%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion16.0%This article: 20.1%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question20.1%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 13.9%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division13.9%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.2%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.2%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 30.9%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice30.9%This article: 16.0%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination16.0%This article: 6.7%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 20.6%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…20.6%

194 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers43%attributed speech111writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 8 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageGabi Finlayson • 13 words • 100.0% coverageHugo Rickard-Bell • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLeia Larsen • 11 words • 0.0% coverageBrigham Tomco • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Spencer Cox

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words47% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Indoctrination+79.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Spencer Cox: 79.5%79.5%Biased Writer Voice-26.3 ptsWriter: 46.8%Spencer Cox: 20.5%20.5%Attempt to Sell a Product -36.0 ptsWriter: 36.0%Spencer Cox: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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