The year in numbers: 2025 in Seattle and Washington state⁠83%

By Teo Popescu⁠0%

12/31/2025, 10:22:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Recency Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 47.5% saturation with 29 hits. Analysis detected 198 faulty-reasoning hits from 61 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (3,866 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.30% of the article peer group.

Record-breaking protests. 
A historic run for the Mariners. 
Mass tech layoffs. 
The closest local election in decades. 
Here are some of the numbers that shaped KUOW’s stories this year. 
Credits 
Story: Teo Popescu 
Design: Teo Popescu 
Editor: Liz Brazile 
Product Manager: Lisa Wang 
Feedback 
We would like to hear your feedback on our reporting. 
Let us know your thoughts at kuow.org/connect. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.7%Teo Popescu: 2.4%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias19.7%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 3.1%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 27.9%Teo Popescu: 5.0%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic27.9%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.7%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.3%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.4%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 47.5%Teo Popescu: 7.0%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect47.5%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 1.8%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.6%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 26.2%Teo Popescu: 1.6%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias26.2%This article: 4.9%Teo Popescu: 1.7%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias4.9%This article: 8.2%Teo Popescu: 3.7%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias8.2%This article: 47.5%Teo Popescu: 3.6%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias47.5%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.4%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.6%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 47.5%Teo Popescu: 2.7%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias47.5%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.6%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.3%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 1.0%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 7.0%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.7%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.5%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 27.9%Teo Popescu: 5.4%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization27.9%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 4.0%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 19.7%Teo Popescu: 0.7%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question19.7%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 2.8%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.7%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 27.9%Teo Popescu: 3.3%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal27.9%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.7%Teo Popescu: 1.6%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.7%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 1.8%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 1.3%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 1.3%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Teo Popescu: 2.8%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

61 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.