The Evolving Plans for the Massive Wonder Valley Data Center 24%

6/11/2026, 5:57:34 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Status Quo Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 39.2% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 394 faulty-reasoning hits from 176 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.9% and a BS Rank of 24% (16,625 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.00% of the article peer group.

A massive data center proposed in Box Elder County received approval from county commissioners weeks ago, and yet the shape of the plan remains very much up in the air. 
Salt Lake Tribune reporter Megan Banta joins us to discuss where things currently stand. 
This is a fast-evolving story, and a lot has happened in recent weeks. 
Utah Senate President Stuart Adams sent a letter to project developer Kevin O’Leary, demanding he dramatically reduce the size and impacts of the Wonder Valley data center. 
O’Leary, after some grumbling, agreed to those changes. 
And a lawsuit has been filed challenging the constitutional legitimacy of MIDA, the quasi-governmental entity that initially approved the data center. 
Banta joins us to talk about all of that, and to recount her visit to the remote site, which lay an hour drive on dirt roads from the nearest town. 
She says she found more cows than people. 
GUEST 
Megan Banta | Data Enterprise Reporter, Salt Lake Tribune 
Podcast date: June 11, 2026 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
11.9%
Representativeness Heuristic
4.5%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
22.7%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
17%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
30.1%
Self-Serving Bias
4.5%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
5.1%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
7.4%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
15.3%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
4.5%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
17%
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
16.5%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
39.2%
Indoctrination
4.5%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
15.3%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
8%

176 words analyzed.

Analysis

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