Daily Kos84%

Slop-henge 85%

By Jen Sorensen0%

7/1/2026, 5:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, In-Group Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 42.1% saturation with 32 hits. Analysis detected 227 faulty-reasoning hits from 76 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76.3% and a BS Rank of 85% (3,434 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.30% of the article peer group.

Follow me on Bluesky or Mastodon 
Related | Police use of artificial intelligence grows as rules lag behind 
We'll get straight to the point: The financial hardships that Daily Kos is facing this year are tough. 
We continue to be paywall-free. 
We continue to be supported by our readers, not billionaires or corporations. 
But we need to bring in more revenue. 
We are leaning on our community more than ever to help make ends meet. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 5.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 3.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.8%Jen Sorensen: 11.5%Daily Kos: 8.9%Framing Effect15.8%This article: 10.5%Jen Sorensen: 2.6%Daily Kos: 0.6%Loss Aversion10.5%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.7%Jen Sorensen: 11.8%Daily Kos: 2.0%Pessimism Bias23.7%This article: 42.1%Jen Sorensen: 10.5%Daily Kos: 15.4%Negativity Bias42.1%This article: 22.4%Jen Sorensen: 5.6%Daily Kos: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias22.4%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 34.2%Jen Sorensen: 21.1%Daily Kos: 2.1%In-Group Bias34.2%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 3.9%Daily Kos: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 5.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 1.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 15.8%Jen Sorensen: 7.9%Daily Kos: 2.3%False Dilemma15.8%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 9.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 42.1%Jen Sorensen: 32.9%Daily Kos: 7.3%Appeal to Emotion42.1%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 1.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.8%Jen Sorensen: 3.9%Daily Kos: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.8%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 2.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 23.7%Jen Sorensen: 26.6%Daily Kos: 23.1%Biased Writer Voice23.7%This article: 10.5%Jen Sorensen: 24.3%Daily Kos: 2.1%Indoctrination10.5%This article: 15.8%Jen Sorensen: 11.8%Daily Kos: 10.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias15.8%This article: 0.0%Jen Sorensen: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 26.3%Jen Sorensen: 13.2%Daily Kos: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…26.3%

76 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker24%attributed speech58writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDaily Kos • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Daily Kos

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words100% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Daily Kos: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -34.5 ptsWriter: 34.5%Daily Kos: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-20.7 ptsWriter: 20.7%Daily Kos: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-13.8 ptsWriter: 13.8%Daily Kos: 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.