Fans Reflect on Stephen Colbert and The Legacy of ‘The Late Show’ ⁠53%

By Meg Felling⁠0%

5/21/2026, 11:38:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Halo Effect, and Sunk Cost Effect, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 20.8% saturation with 40 hits. Analysis detected 315 faulty-reasoning hits from 192 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠53% (10,399 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.50% of the article peer group.

Outside the Ed Sullivan Theater in Manhattan, fans shared their thoughts on the legacy of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” as the late-night program prepares to tape its final episode. 
“I think he’s a genius and he’s going to be totally missed, and I would have really done anything to be here today.” 
“I’m just a big fan of his because I was here for his first show, and now I’m going to be seeing his final show, and it’s an emotional time.” 
“I think we kind of wanted to be in the room where it happened. 
Even though we won’t be in the room, we’re on the street where it happened. 
He’s a very intelligent, well-spoken, well-thought-out person who is able to make the news bearable.” 
“If we can’t laugh about what’s happening, I think we’re all going to just totally lose it. 
So we’ll really, really miss Stephen.” 
“I think as a society we’re taking a big step backwards in terms of being able to tell the truth, and it’s sad. 
It shouldn’t have ended this way.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Meg Felling: 5.7%The New York Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic7.3%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.8%The New York Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 5.8%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 15.1%Meg Felling: 3.8%The New York Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion15.1%This article: 3.1%Meg Felling: 0.8%The New York Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias3.1%This article: 15.6%Meg Felling: 3.9%The New York Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect15.6%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%Meg Felling: 11.2%The New York Times: 3.5%Pessimism Bias20.8%This article: 19.8%Meg Felling: 7.9%The New York Times: 9.4%Negativity Bias19.8%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Meg Felling: 7.6%The New York Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 19.8%Meg Felling: 14.8%The New York Times: 0.9%Halo Effect19.8%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 3.9%The New York Times: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 4.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 8.9%Meg Felling: 4.4%The New York Times: 1.2%False Dilemma8.9%This article: 8.9%Meg Felling: 4.4%The New York Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope8.9%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.0%Meg Felling: 9.0%The New York Times: 2.7%Hasty Generalization12.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.9%Meg Felling: 11.3%The New York Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion8.9%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.1%Meg Felling: 0.8%The New York Times: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.1%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 19.4%The New York Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 8.9%Meg Felling: 2.2%The New York Times: 0.5%Indoctrination8.9%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Felling: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

192 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

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

Analysis

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