Producer Picks: Tactile Basketball, Costco, Cougar Gold, and the Grand Illusion Cinema⁠93%

By Sarah Leibovitz⁠0% Libby Denkmann⁠0% Shane Mehling⁠0% Hans Anderson⁠0% Jason Burrows⁠0%

12/25/2025, 6:45:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Halo Effect, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 56.2% saturation with 77 hits. Analysis detected 394 faulty-reasoning hits from 137 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 87.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠93% (1,674 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.40% of the article peer group.

Christmas Eve begins our holiday break here on Soundside. 
We’re taking some time off to enjoy the holidays with our friends and family… or to just eat lots of good food while staying indoors. 
But we’ve still got plenty of jam packed shows ready for you. 
Today - we’re focusing on local businesses here in the Pacific Northwest. 
RELATED LINKS: A tech startup helping the visually impaired "watch" sports with their fingertips 
Will people always love Costco? 
At 75, Cougar Gold canned cheese is still a Washington state favorite 
The lights go down... for now... on the Grand Illusion Cinema 
Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! 
If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/soundsidenotes 
Soundside is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Sarah Leibovitz: 2.5%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Sarah Leibovitz: 2.5%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.3%Sarah Leibovitz: 34.8%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect15.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 21.2%Sarah Leibovitz: 32.5%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect21.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 7.0%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 56.2%Sarah Leibovitz: 27.5%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias56.2%This article: 8.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 2.6%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion8.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 1.7%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 37.2%Sarah Leibovitz: 10.6%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias37.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 2.9%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.9%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.8%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.8%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 7.8%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.5%Sarah Leibovitz: 3.0%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias9.5%This article: 17.5%Sarah Leibovitz: 7.4%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias17.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 3.6%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.4%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.6%This article: 19.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 1.9%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal19.0%This article: 10.9%Sarah Leibovitz: 11.1%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority10.9%This article: 34.3%Sarah Leibovitz: 11.1%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion34.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 8.8%Sarah Leibovitz: 10.2%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon8.8%This article: 3.6%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.7%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 18.2%Sarah Leibovitz: 1.8%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma18.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 1.1%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.4%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 2.1%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Leibovitz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%

137 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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