Coming soon... Stateside with Kai and Carter ⁠92%

By Kai Wright⁠0% Carter Sherman⁠0%

5/6/2026, 5:31:15 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Biased Writer Voice, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 64% saturation with 32 hits. Analysis detected 94 faulty-reasoning hits from 50 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86% and a BS Rank of ⁠92% (1,879 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.40% of the article peer group.

The news is stressful. 
Talking about it doesn’t have to be. 
Join the Guardian’s Kai Wright and Carter Sherman for conversations with the best journalists and biggest thinkers. 
New episodes every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. 
Starting 13 May. 
YouTube 
Apple 
Spotify 
Instagram 
TikTok 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 3.6%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 4.9%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 60.3%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.0%Kai Wright: 14.8%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias14.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Kai Wright: 32.8%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 9.7%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 10.7%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 9.7%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 34.0%Kai Wright: 3.2%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect34.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 34.0%Kai Wright: 3.2%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority34.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 19.1%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 46.6%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 3.6%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 9.7%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 4.9%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 19.5%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 23.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 34.0%Kai Wright: 50.2%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice34.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 5.4%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 40.8%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kai Wright: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 64.0%Kai Wright: 6.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…64.0%

50 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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