BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Optimism Bias, and Sunk Cost Effect, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 24.1% saturation with 168 hits. Analysis detected 1,527 faulty-reasoning hits from 696 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.4% and a BS Rank of 75% (5,654 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.20% of the article peer group.

Students ask questions to leaders working to support youth mental health. 
This July marked the ninth summer that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota has partnered with ThreeSixty Journalism for their Multimedia Storytelling Institute, a partnership aimed to empower the next generation of journalists, change existing narratives, and give voice to those most impacted by barriers to good health. 22 students participated in the three-week immersive camp, which allowed students to learn about the ins and outs of reporting from local media experts and report on timely issues directly impacting Minnesota communities. 
This year’s Multimedia Storytelling Institute theme was youth mental health. 
Students reported on the state of youth mental health in Minnesota, highlighting some of the greatest issues currently affecting youth wellbeing, treatment, and recovery. 
Throughout the three-week camp, students had the opportunity to develop their writing and communication skills and work directly with some of the industry’s leading journalism professionals to call attention to the state of youth mental health in Minnesota. 
Media partners included KARE-11, KSTP-TV, TPT, the Minnesota Star Tribune, Pioneer Press, MinnPost, the University of Minnesota, Unicorn Riot, and Lindsey Seavert Studios. 
“No one can tell the story of youth mental health better than young people themselves,” said Bukata Hayes, Chief Community Health Officer at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota. 
“ThreeSixty Journalism students are using their voices and lived experiences to shed light on the mental health challenges facing young people today and highlighting innovative solutions and sources of support to improve health across Minnesota.” 
ThreeSixty Journalism students work with mentors to draft multimedia stories on youth mental health. 
Credit: Jason Daum 
According to Mental Health America’s (MHA) 2025 State of Mental Health in America report , Minnesota ranks 30th in the nation for youth mental health, reflecting both strengths and ongoing challenges for young people across the state. 
While Minnesota has strong systems for identifying and supporting youth with mental health needs, the report found that nearly 21% of Minnesota youth experienced a major depressive episode and almost 14% reported serious thoughts of suicide, while two-thirds of youth experiencing depression did not receive care. 
These findings underscore why youth mental health continues to be a critical issue and why it is so important to create opportunities to elevate youth voices and share stories about mental health. 
“Mental health isn’t really talked enough about,” said Wendy Xiong, Junior at Johnson Senior High School. 
“For young people it’s not that normalized, and they tend to keep things to themselves without letting other people understand what they’re going through. 
Having youth report on the topic is really empowering.” 
Students reported on the work of Ain Dah Yung to reduce rates of suicide for American Indian youth, the rising rates of eating disorders amongst young men with Emily Program, the Recovery Road, CornerHouse, teen vaping with the Association for Non-Smokers MN (ANSR), and the power of art therapy to create healing. 
Through reporting, storytelling, and honest conversations, programs like ThreeSixty Journalism help raise awareness, reduce stigma, and amplify youth voices at a time when many young people face significant mental health challenges. 
ThreeSixty Journalism student works with mentor to draft multimedia stories on youth mental health. 
Credit: Jason Daum 
“It’s important for young people to report on difficult, complex topics because their lives are impacted by those realities every day, and they deserve representation in shaping public narratives about them,” said Kenzie O’Keefe, Director of ThreeSixty Journalism. 
“The journalistic process builds understanding, community, and agency—all things we want for young people as they grow into informed, civically engaged adults capable of transforming our world for the better.” 
For the students in this year’s cohort, reporting on youth mental health was about more than learning journalism skills—it was an opportunity to explore issues affecting their peers and communities while helping others feel seen and understood. 
By giving students the tools, mentorship, and platform to tell meaningful stories, the program continues to create opportunities for young voices to inform important conversations and bring fresh perspectives to Minnesota’s media landscape. 
Click here to learn more about the program or read the Fall 2025 magazine . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.6%Blue Cross: 1.5%Sahan Journal: 1.7%Confirmation Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 1.8%Sahan Journal: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Blue Cross: 4.3%Sahan Journal: 2.2%Availability Heuristic12.8%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.0%Blue Cross: 8.0%Sahan Journal: 4.7%Framing Effect24.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%Blue Cross: 5.5%Sahan Journal: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect16.5%This article: 19.8%Blue Cross: 23.7%Sahan Journal: 4.3%Optimism Bias19.8%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Blue Cross: 4.4%Sahan Journal: 4.3%Negativity Bias6.6%This article: 5.3%Blue Cross: 1.8%Sahan Journal: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Blue Cross: 4.0%Sahan Journal: 1.6%In-Group Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Blue Cross: 2.6%Sahan Journal: 1.4%Halo Effect7.8%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Blue Cross: 1.8%Sahan Journal: 0.7%Recency Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.7%Blue Cross: 8.1%Sahan Journal: 3.0%Appeal to Authority14.7%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.9%Blue Cross: 6.5%Sahan Journal: 4.0%Hasty Generalization6.9%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.1%Blue Cross: 4.0%Sahan Journal: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion12.1%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.5%Blue Cross: 4.5%Sahan Journal: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.5%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.5%Blue Cross: 1.8%Sahan Journal: 0.2%Composition/Division5.5%This article: 14.1%Blue Cross: 4.7%Sahan Journal: 2.7%Anecdotal14.1%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.8%Blue Cross: 14.9%Sahan Journal: 2.0%Biased Writer Voice13.8%This article: 4.3%Blue Cross: 2.9%Sahan Journal: 0.9%Indoctrination4.3%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Blue Cross: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 24.1%Blue Cross: 8.8%Sahan Journal: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…24.1%

696 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers38%attributed speech432writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageBlue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota • 82 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBukata Hayes • 30 words • 0.0% coverageBukata Hayes • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWendy Xiong • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWendy Xiong • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWendy Xiong • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageKenzie O’Keefe • 38 words • 0.0% coverageKenzie O’Keefe • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kenzie O’Keefe

100%flagged-word coverage
68 attributed words26% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Indoctrination+44.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kenzie O’Keefe: 44.1%44.1%Attempt to Sell a Product -19.9 ptsWriter: 19.9%Kenzie O’Keefe: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%Kenzie O’Keefe: 0.0%0.0%

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.