WPLN News⁠32%

NashVillager Podcast: Charlie Kirk fallout continues in Tennessee ⁠21%

By Nina Cardona⁠13%

7/31/2026, 4:55:33 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Confirmation Bias, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 28.9% saturation with 24 hits. Analysis detected 131 faulty-reasoning hits from 83 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠21% (21,190 of 26,823 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.00% of the article peer group.

Is it dangerous speech or an inconvenient opinion? 
Tennessee has had two tracks of action after Charlie Kirk’s death. 
One limits free speech, the other has ended in legal settlements for limiting people’s free speech. 
Plus, the local news for July 31, 2026, and hellbenders. 
**Credits:** 
This is a production of Nashville Public Radio. 
Host/producer: Nina Cardona 
Editor: LaTonya Turner 
Additional support: Mack Linebaugh, Tony Gonzalez, Megan Jones and the staff of WPLN and WNXP 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.3%Nina Cardona: 0.6%WPLN: 1.9%Confirmation Bias19.3%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 3.2%WPLN: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.0%WPLN: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.1%WPLN: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.3%Nina Cardona: 7.5%WPLN: 3.3%Framing Effect19.3%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.6%WPLN: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.2%WPLN: 0.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 28.9%Nina Cardona: 5.2%WPLN: 6.0%Negativity Bias28.9%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.4%WPLN: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.6%WPLN: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.6%Nina Cardona: 0.8%WPLN: 1.2%Recency Bias9.6%This article: 13.3%Nina Cardona: 1.2%WPLN: 0.2%Primacy Effect13.3%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.2%WPLN: 2.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 28.9%Nina Cardona: 3.1%WPLN: 0.9%False Dilemma28.9%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 3.3%WPLN: 2.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.0%WPLN: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.3%Nina Cardona: 1.8%WPLN: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.3%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.3%WPLN: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 19.3%Nina Cardona: 2.2%WPLN: 1.7%Biased Writer Voice19.3%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.4%WPLN: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.5%WPLN: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

83 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers17%attributed speech69writer words
0%flagged-word coverage
8 attributed words57% of attributed speech62% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.2 ptsWriter: 23.2%Nashville Public Radio: 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.