July highlights from The Richmonder 79%

By Beth Weisbrod94%

8/1/2026, 4:00:10 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 34.4% saturation with 87 hits. Analysis detected 664 faulty-reasoning hits from 253 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.3% and a BS Rank of 79% (5,606 of 25,563 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.10% of the article peer group.

Our most popular feature has returned! 
The Richmonder 25 is here! 
This is the second annual highlighting of 25 beautiful humans who make Richmond better. 
Make sure to check out their stories in our newsletters throughout the summer, and then we hope you’ll join us to honor them at a festive celebration at the Hippodrome in September, featuring keynote speaker and former UVA football player Perris Jones. 
Our 2025 event was magical, and thanks to generous support from Estes, this year’s is shaping up to be even better. 
The event sold out last year, so click here now if you don’t want to miss it. 
And I don’t think you do. 
The Richmonder goes regional 
July saw the beginning of our full-time coverage of Chesterfield, the region's most populous but possibly least-covered county. 
The very talented Eleanor Shaw, fresh from her leadership of JMU’s student newspaper, The Breeze, has already published stories on Google’s planned data center, a free speech lawsuit, drones as first responders and much more. 
In less than a month, she has turned on the lights on important issues impacting the region. 
Eleanor is with us thanks to a matching grant from Report for America. 
If you'd like to support her work and double your donation, you can do so here. 
One last thing 
Come see us at the St. 
Stephen's farmers market on August 8 and pick up some Richmonder merch! 
Fingers crossed for an August free of heat domes. 
Reach out anytime, 
Beth 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
7.1%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
6.7%
Framing Effect
22.9%
Loss Aversion
29.6%
Status Quo Bias
7.1%
Sunk Cost Effect
8.3%
Optimism Bias
14.2%
Pessimism Bias
3.6%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
7.9%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
19.4%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
11.5%
Primacy Effect
6.7%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
13.8%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
6.7%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
22.5%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
8.3%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
6.7%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
7.1%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
15.4%
Indoctrination
2.4%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
34.4%

253 words analyzed.

Analysis

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