STLPR0%

The Bosnian soccer team lost. Bosnians in St. Louis won anyway 21%

By Jeremy D. Goodwin0%

7/6/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 20.4% saturation with 122 hits. Analysis detected 1,360 faulty-reasoning hits from 598 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.9% and a BS Rank of 21% (16,845 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.50% of the article peer group.

Cars lined Gravois Avenue as drivers honked their horns and others waved the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 
There was a sea of people in Bosnian blue and yellow outside Bevo Caffe Lounge in south St. 
Louis. 
They were upbeat, taking group photos and chatting excitedly. 
The big FIFA World Cup match had ended. 
Bosnia lost. 
But for many St. 
Louisans, just getting the chance to see the men’s Bosnian national soccer team compete on the world stage was a victory that transcended the numbers on the scoreboard. 
The team qualified for the world’s most prestigious soccer competition for just the second time with a surprise win over Italy in March. 
The players trained in St. 
Louis ahead of the tournament, played a June exhibition match with Panama at Energizer Park and then made the knockout round, advancing further at the World Cup than in the team's first appearance. 
All the hubbub fostered deeper connections within the local Bosnian community. 
For some, the team’s appearance in the World Cup was a message to the rest of the world. 
“People tried to erase us,” Lejla Sobo said before Wednesday’s match between Bosnia and the U.S., referring to the ethnic cleansing campaign perpetrated by Serbia that sent hundreds of thousands of Bosnian refugees fleeing in the 1990s. 
Sobo’s parents were among them, and she was born in the U.S. 
“Just coming together,” she continued, “this means a lot for our community. 
It's celebrating the fact that we weren't erased.” 
The historic World Cup run may have made the biggest impact on the youngest in the community, many of whom discovered a new connection to their families’ past. 
“I came here as a 13-year-old, and now I have kids that are U.S. citizens,” said Melisa Kusuran as she waited for the match to start. 
“They've never been around this type of energy, these types of crowds. 
To see the community come together and really rally around this small little community, this small little country, it’s really phenomenal. 
I think our kids are saying, ‘We get it now.’” 
Her friend Abina Pasic, who came to the U.S. at 16, jumped in. 
“Our kids were born here, they're American. 
But to see them rooting so hard for our country and being so passionate about it, it's just so amazing.” 
World Cup season kicked off with a raucous pep rally at Das Bevo in May, preceded by a parade to the event by the St. 
Louis Dragons youth soccer club. 
The exhibition match at Energizer Park was one of the largest gatherings of Bosnians ever held in St. 
Louis. 
The pairing of the U.S. and Bosnia in the World Cup’s Round of 32 came about partly through the luck of the draw. 
But it provided the perfect occasion for St. 
Louis Bosnians to express the complicated emotions experienced by many immigrants  pride in their ancestral home combined with commitment to the community in the U.S. where they’ve made a life. 
“We're Americans and we're Bosnians,” Kusuran said. 
“Regardless of what happens, it's ultimately a win.” 
Although there were few U.S. team jerseys to be found at Bevo Caffe Lounge during the Bosnia match, there was little obvious dismay when Bosnia lost by a score of 2-0. 
“Go Bosnia, go U.S. 
I would not want to lose to any other country but the U.S.,” Pasic said. 
“I will not be mad if Bosnia does lose, because we are United States citizens. 
This is our home, so it's a good team to lose to.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.1%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic11.9%This article: 11.2%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic11.2%This article: 10.2%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 8.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect5.9%This article: 7.2%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion7.2%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 6.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 6.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias5.9%This article: 14.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 4.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias14.0%This article: 3.8%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error3.8%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 20.4%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias20.4%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 3.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect6.9%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 2.5%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 3.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization14.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.7%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.7%This article: 15.9%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 3.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion15.9%This article: 1.3%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question1.3%This article: 12.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.8%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof1.8%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.7%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division4.7%This article: 7.7%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal7.7%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.2%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.2%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.4%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote11.4%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.4%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 3.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice16.4%This article: 9.5%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination9.5%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy D. Goodwin: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

598 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers36%attributed speech384writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageLejla Sobo • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageLejla Sobo • 12 words • 0.0% coverageLejla Sobo • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMelisa Kusuran • 26 words • 0.0% coverageMelisa Kusuran • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMelisa Kusuran • 21 words • 100.0% coverageMelisa Kusuran • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAbina Pasic • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAbina Pasic • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageKusuran • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKusuran • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageAbina Pasic • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAbina Pasic • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAbina Pasic • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAbina Pasic • 12 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kusuran

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words7.0% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Indoctrination+53.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kusuran: 53.3%53.3%Biased Writer Voice-20.1 ptsWriter: 20.1%Kusuran: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Kusuran: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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