The New History of a Famed Expedition ⁠34%

5/26/2026, 12:42:49 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 34.9% saturation with 59 hits. Analysis detected 351 faulty-reasoning hits from 169 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠34% (14,630 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.80% of the article peer group.

Sacajawea remains a critical player in this story, of course, but Fehrman’s work also reveals new stories of other expedition members, as well as people they met along the way. 
There’s York, the Black man enslaved by William Clark; John Ordway, the soldier who journaled about Native Americans; and the Blackfoot youth named Wolf Calf who skirmished with the party members. 
And from afar, then-President Thomas Jefferson fought to support the expedition. 
Fehrman spent years digging through archives and collecting interviews, and he says the public interest in the expedition was akin to today’s Artemis II space mission. 
He’s joining us to talk about how Lewis and Clark — and everyone who helped them — battled their way through a wild and dangerous land that each of them understood very differently. 
GUEST – 
Craig Fehrman | He’s an historian and a journalist. 
His book is called “This Vast Enterprise: A New History of Lewis & Clark.” 
Airdate: May 28 and 30, 2026 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.8%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias17.8%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.4%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic15.4%This article: 19.5%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic19.5%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 34.9%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect34.9%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: 0.0%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias0.0%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: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%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: 20.7%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority20.7%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.5%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization19.5%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%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: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.5%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal6.5%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.4%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.4%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: 33.1%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice33.1%This article: 19.5%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination19.5%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

169 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers27%attributed speech123writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Jefferson • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCraig Fehrman • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageCraig Fehrman • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Craig Fehrman

100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words76% of attributed speech51% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice+49.9 ptsWriter: 24.4%Craig Fehrman: 74.3%74.3%Indoctrination-26.8 ptsWriter: 26.8%Craig Fehrman: 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.