The Ohio Channel ⁠81%

7/19/2026, 6:38:57 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Optimism Bias, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 71.3% saturation with 77 hits. Analysis detected 376 faulty-reasoning hits from 108 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (4,273 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.50% of the article peer group.

The Ohio Channel is a service of Ohio's public broadcasting stations. 
A new concept in public affairs programming, the Ohio Channel combines Statehouse coverage with locally produced PBS programs to give a statewide perspective on issues that affect the lives of all Ohioans. 
Coverage of Statehouse activities is unedited and is commentary-free to give you an unbiased and open perspective on government activities. 
The Ohio House of Representatives, the Ohio Senate, and the Supreme Court of Ohio are all covered gavel to gavel. 
In addition, news conferences and meetings are broadcast across the state. 
Visit The Ohio Channel's site for additional live and on-demand video. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.5%Ideastream Public Media: 0.6%Confirmation Bias18.5%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 1.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 28.7%Ideastream Public Media: 3.4%Framing Effect28.7%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 29.6%Ideastream Public Media: 3.2%Optimism Bias29.6%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 1.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 48.1%Ideastream Public Media: 9.0%Halo Effect48.1%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 29.6%Ideastream Public Media: 2.2%Appeal to Authority29.6%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 18.5%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning18.5%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 2.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 18.5%Ideastream Public Media: 0.4%Begging the Question18.5%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 18.5%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Appeal to Nature18.5%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 48.1%Ideastream Public Media: 5.4%Biased Writer Voice48.1%This article: 18.5%Ideastream Public Media: 4.2%Indoctrination18.5%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 71.3%Ideastream Public Media: 7.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…71.3%

108 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker19%attributed speech88writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageOhio Senate • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ohio Senate

100%flagged-word coverage
20 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +35.2 ptsWriter: 64.8%Ohio Senate: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-59.1 ptsWriter: 59.1%Ohio Senate: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-22.7 ptsWriter: 22.7%Ohio Senate: 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.