Online Services ⁠1%

By Post⁠1% Courier⁠26%

7/23/2026, 1:12:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 1 faulty reasoning type, including Indoctrination, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 21% saturation with 13 hits. Analysis detected 13 faulty-reasoning hits from 62 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 7% and a BS Rank of ⁠1% (21,685 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.10% of the article peer group.

The Post and Courier welcomes letters to the editor. 
Letters can be a maximum of 250 words and are subject to editing for libel, tone and clarity. 
Pen names are not allowed, and anonymous letters will not be published. 
Include your daytime phone number for verification purposes. 
Please disclose any personal or financial interest in the subject you’re writing about. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 2.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 3.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 4.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 4.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 5.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 4.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 2.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 1.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 21.0%Post: 7.0%Post and Courier: 0.5%Indoctrination21.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Post: 0.0%Post and Courier: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

62 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker97%attributed speech2writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageThe Post and Courier • 9 words • 0.0% coverageThe Post and Courier • 18 words • 0.0% coverageThe Post and Courier • 12 words • 0.0% coverageThe Post and Courier • 8 words • 0.0% coverageThe Post and Courier • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Post and Courier

22%flagged-word coverage
60 attributed words100% of attributed speech0% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Indoctrination+21.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%The Post and Courier: 21.7%21.7%

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.