WPLN News⁠33%

NashVillager Podcast: Partisan evolution in Tennessee politics ⁠12%

By Nina Cardona⁠14%

8/7/2026, 5:12:51 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Framing Effect, with Hindsight Bias as the most egregious example at 23.1% saturation with 18 hits. Analysis detected 84 faulty-reasoning hits from 78 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 21.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠12% (26,807 of 30,213 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.70% of the article peer group.

How did Tennessee turn from a Democratic stronghold to reliably red? 
The results of yesterday’s primary elections and a look back at the 2000 election that painted Tennessee red. 
Plus the local news for August 7, 2026 and remembering Martha Ingram. 
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: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.5%WPLN: 1.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.9%WPLN: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.8%WPLN: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 23.1%Nina Cardona: 2.5%WPLN: 0.3%Hindsight Bias23.1%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%Nina Cardona: 7.5%WPLN: 3.4%Framing Effect14.1%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.0%WPLN: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.5%WPLN: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.2%WPLN: 0.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 4.7%WPLN: 5.6%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.3%WPLN: 0.2%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: 0.7%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: 0.5%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: 23.1%Nina Cardona: 1.9%WPLN: 1.3%Recency Bias23.1%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%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: 1.1%WPLN: 2.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 14.1%Nina Cardona: 3.2%WPLN: 0.8%False Dilemma14.1%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: 3.0%WPLN: 2.6%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: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.0%WPLN: 3.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 23.1%Nina Cardona: 0.6%WPLN: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.1%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.9%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: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.0%WPLN: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.6%WPLN: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 1.0%WPLN: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.0%WPLN: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.0%WPLN: 1.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.3%WPLN: 0.8%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: 10.3%Nina Cardona: 1.6%WPLN: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.3%

78 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers37%attributed speech49writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
8 attributed words28% of attributed speech59% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nashville Public Radio: 100.0%100.0%

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.