This must be downtown L.A. 88%

By Todd Martens72%

3/6/2024, 3:00:50 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Appeal to Emotion, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 91.6% saturation with 721 hits. Analysis detected 3,524 faulty-reasoning hits from 787 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.1% and a BS Rank of 88% (2,620 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.00% of the article peer group.

If Los Angeles is a city in flux  a place with an ever-shifting center that’s home to many a transplant and is sometimes too eager to favor the new  then perhaps no neighborhood better embodies our town than downtown. 
Once the beating heart of the region, downtown has survived multiple eras of ups and downs, and remains a place in constant transformation. 
To live in downtown  I have been a resident of the area for nearly 15 years  is not only to confront the fantasy of Los Angeles but also to come face to face with the city at its most dystopian. 
It’s a neighborhood of clashes, home to the grandeur of Walt Disney Concert Hall, the romance of rooftop eateries, the idealized history of Olvera Street and, of course, the harsh realities of class inequity and unrealized dreams, as downtown and Skid Row remain the epicenter of our homeless crisis. 
And yet, downtown is history. 
The Angels Flight Railway today is a charmer, a short theme-park like journey connecting the heights of Bunker Hill with the Historic Core and Grand Central Market. 
But the Bunker Hill of today, with its skyscrapers and art museums, is a long way removed from its turn-of-the-century Victorian homes  or the so-called blight that the area was in the 1940s and ’50s when the rich jettisoned downtown. 
Displacement and leveling occurred. 
Downtown is contradictions. 
Until 1957, downtown buildings were capped to a height of 150 feet. 
A building boom followed, and downtown won its reputation as a place occupied by 9-to-5 office workers by day, deserted by night. 
Today, unfinished skyscrapers have become canvases for graffiti artists, and a post-pandemic work-from-home lifestyle has pinned the hopes for downtown’s future on its potential as a residential area. 
Downtown is the center of our city  where settlers and indigenous people before them found freshwater  but emblematic of a region where its people refused to agree upon a center for any length of time. 
Or weren’t always given a choice. 
Our magnificent Union Station, today a burgeoning public transit hub, was built on ground that was the original Chinatown. 
To fully embrace downtown is to be forced to reconcile our city’s sometimes messy past. 
And yet downtown is home. 
The ornate movie palaces of Broadway still stand, though are used more often as concert venues today. 
One is an Apple Store, the arrival of which in 2021 was itself seen as something of a pivotal moment, heralded, much as was the return of Ralphs to the area in 2007, as a sign that downtown was once again a livable destination. 
But it always was. 
To try to capture downtown in a neighborhood guide is nearly impossible: The Historic Core is as different from Bunker Hill as South Park is from the Fashion District. 
We’ve splintered off the Arts District, which is equally unwieldy, and have defined downtown as a place stretching from around Union Station to the mecca of activity near Crypto.com Arena. 
Look for the neighborhoods-within-a-neighborhood that are Little Toyko and Chinatown to receive a similar treatment soon. 
What you’ll find here is a look at a heavily walkable slice of Los Angeles, a place where gourmet food resides in the 100-plus-year-old food hall of Grand Central Market, where cocktail bars such as the Wolves attempt to whisk us to a yesteryear that never existed, and a bookstore has become a tourist destination that serves as a living art gallery. 
There’s more to the region than is captured here, of course  the details of our city’s founding, for instance, or the battle over the creation of a French dip sandwich. 
But what is here is comfortable and communal, be it the gloriousness of a flour tortilla or the coziness of a neighborhood bar. 
Downtown, finally, is a mystery. 
Venture into an alley, for example, to find the Smell, still the best all-ages location for underground and experimental music. 
Turn into a somewhat abandoned courtyard and stumble into a nearly forgotten slice of Old World kitsch. 
Nestled near the heart of Skid Row lies Mignon, one of the quietest, most intimate wine bars in the city. 
And hiding in the Central Library just happens to be one of the city’s niftiest little gift shops. 
That it can hold all this and more, that it can be the birthplace of our city yet also one of our most malleable neighborhoods, is key to downtown’s allure. 
It can be grimy and unvarnished, sure, but it’s also never stopped dreaming. 
Is it the city core that it was envisioned as more than a couple of centuries ago? 
For many, it was never anything but. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.4%Todd Martens: 4.9%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias17.4%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.7%Todd Martens: 4.4%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic21.7%This article: 8.4%Todd Martens: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic8.4%This article: 0.5%Todd Martens: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.5%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.4%Todd Martens: 5.1%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect18.4%This article: 0.8%Todd Martens: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.8%This article: 3.8%Todd Martens: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 22.0%Todd Martens: 7.7%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias22.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 1.9%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 26.3%Todd Martens: 9.6%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias26.3%This article: 5.3%Todd Martens: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Todd Martens: 3.1%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 21.3%Todd Martens: 5.1%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect21.3%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.4%Todd Martens: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias8.4%This article: 5.8%Todd Martens: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect5.8%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.6%Todd Martens: 3.7%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority4.6%This article: 3.7%Todd Martens: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.8%Todd Martens: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning3.8%This article: 18.6%Todd Martens: 8.3%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization18.6%This article: 3.9%Todd Martens: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring3.9%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 34.9%Todd Martens: 7.5%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion34.9%This article: 7.4%Todd Martens: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question7.4%This article: 17.2%Todd Martens: 2.0%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.2%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 23.9%Todd Martens: 5.5%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal23.9%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 43.6%Todd Martens: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)43.6%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 91.6%Todd Martens: 12.8%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice91.6%This article: 7.2%Todd Martens: 3.8%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination7.2%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Todd Martens: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 26.3%Todd Martens: 5.6%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…26.3%

787 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.2%attributed speech738writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWalt Disney Concert Hall • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 62 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words100% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+8.9 ptsWriter: 91.1%Walt Disney Concert Hall: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -28.0 ptsWriter: 28.0%Walt Disney Concert Hall: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Walt Disney Concert Hall: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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