BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Framing Effect, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 49.4% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 567 faulty-reasoning hits from 162 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.7% and a BS Rank of 82% (3,544 of 19,667 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.00% of the article peer group.

The Seattle Times investigative team seeks to hold the powerful to account and expose injustices through meticulous reporting and compelling storytelling. 
Using every journalistic tool available, the team is dedicated to making Seattle, Washington state and the Pacific Northwest more transparent, fair and just. 
Lynnwood teacher accused of inappropriate touching kept in classroom for 20 months 
A school district didn’t investigate for a year after the first complaint about a special-education teacher and did not interview students. 
Then a student reported sexual assault. 
Answers to your questions about The Seattle Times’ investigative journalism 
The Seattle Times' investigative team works on behalf of the public to hold the powerful to account and expose injustices. 
In this FAQ, we answer reader questions about our reporting processes and ethical policies. 
Investigative journalism fund - supporting journalism that holds power accountable and drives change 
Visit our page to learn more about our mission, our team, how to send a tip, and our recent awards 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
14.2%
Framing Effect
34%
Loss Aversion
8%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
22.2%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
49.4%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
39.5%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
7.4%
Primacy Effect
8.6%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
12.3%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
8%
Appeal to Emotion
7.4%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
24.7%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
13%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
25.3%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
7.4%
Biased Writer Voice
25.3%
Indoctrination
14.2%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
29%

162 words analyzed.

Analysis

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