BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.6% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 670 faulty-reasoning hits from 583 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.1% and a BS Rank of 32% (14,885 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.00% of the article peer group.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Wednesday again accused the U.S. of meddling in Mexico’s internal affairs after The Times published a report about two Mexican governors from her party who have had their U.S. visas revoked amid criminal probes into their possible links to organized crime. 
Sheinbaum, speaking at her daily news conference, said it was up to the governors, Alfonso Durazo of Sonora and Américo Villarreal Anaya of Tamaulipas, to respond to the allegations against them. 
But she questioned the rationale of the U.S. investigations, part of a sweeping Trump administration campaign against high-level Mexican officials suspected of aiding cartels. 
“What is the intent behind revoking the visas, and, furthermore, making that information public?” 
she asked. 
“What is the underlying motive?” 
In April, the Justice Department revealed sweeping criminal charges against prominent members of Sheinbaum’s Morena party, including Gov. 
Rubén Rocha Moya of Sinaloa. 
He and nine other current and former officials were accused of helping the Sinaloa cartel smuggle drugs into the U.S. in exchange for millions of dollars in bribes. 
Sheinbaum rejected a U.S. request that her government extradite Rocha Moya to the U.S. to face charges, saying Mexican prosecutors will review the case against him, and slammed the Trump administration for meddling in Mexican politics. 
“When those abroad dictate who is guilty and who is not, when there are attempts to pressure our institutions  we are no longer talking about cooperation, we are talking about interference,” she said. 
“We do not accept interference.” 
The Times investigation cited sources who said that Durazo, 71, and Villareal, 68, had their U.S. visas cancelled amid criminal investigations. 
The sources spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters. 
Since the cancellation of the visas, both have been the recipients of Significant Public Benefit parole, which can be used to allow individuals to enter the U.S. to cooperate with law enforcement, the sources said. 
The program allows non-citizens to testify before a grand jury to mitigate consequences of actual or pending charges against them or others. 
In a statement to The Times, Villarreal denied any connection to organized crime, saying that as a public servant, he has always been transparent, responsible and followed the law. 
Durazo, speaking to journalists on Wednesday, said his visa has not been revoked, that he is not aware of an investigation into his actions, and that he has committed no wrongdoing. 
He said he is so honest, “I practically sweat holy water.” 
Durazo blamed The Times report on “a deliberate effort to politically undermine a progressive project,” echoing comments made by Sheinbaum over the weekend that the Trump administration is seeking to influence politics in Mexico. 
At her news conference Wednesday, Sheinbaum said she was “skeptical” of the case against the governors. 
Investigating active government officials in Mexico is a new strategy for the United States, which in the past refrained from targeting sitting leaders in allied countries with criminal investigations because of the clear political ramifications. 
The Trump administration, which last year declared several Mexican cartels terrorist groups, has embraced the approach, putting new pressure on Morena party  which came to power on a promise to combat corruption  and further straining the relationship between the two countries ahead of next month’s review of a free trade pact with Canada. 
This article was co-published by the Los Angeles Times and Puente News Collaborative, a bilingual nonprofit newsroom that covers stories from Mexico and the U.S.-Mexico border. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.8%Kate Linthicum: 7.1%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 5.4%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Kate Linthicum: 5.2%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect7.9%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.0%Kate Linthicum: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Kate Linthicum: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias1.9%This article: 3.6%Kate Linthicum: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias3.6%This article: 16.6%Kate Linthicum: 6.5%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias16.6%This article: 16.5%Kate Linthicum: 4.8%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias16.5%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 3.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 4.6%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Kate Linthicum: 4.2%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect5.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 2.1%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 3.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.6%Kate Linthicum: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority3.6%This article: 5.8%Kate Linthicum: 2.3%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma5.8%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.0%Kate Linthicum: 7.8%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.9%Kate Linthicum: 2.7%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion1.9%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.3%Kate Linthicum: 2.6%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.3%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.9%Kate Linthicum: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal1.9%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.3%Kate Linthicum: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.3%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.0%Kate Linthicum: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote6.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 3.0%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.9%Kate Linthicum: 3.5%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice7.9%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Linthicum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

583 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers47%attributed speech309writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageClaudia Sheinbaum • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageClaudia Sheinbaum • 14 words • 100.0% coverageClaudia Sheinbaum • 2 words • 0.0% coverageClaudia Sheinbaum • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageClaudia Sheinbaum • 36 words • 0.0% coverageClaudia Sheinbaum • 34 words • 0.0% coverageClaudia Sheinbaum • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAmérico Villarreal Anaya • 29 words • 0.0% coverageAlfonso Durazo • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAlfonso Durazo • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAlfonso Durazo • 34 words • 0.0% coverageClaudia Sheinbaum • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Times • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words11% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.9 ptsWriter: 14.9%Américo Villarreal Anaya: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%Américo Villarreal Anaya: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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