The Lens⁠52%

PODCAST: Governor’s veto and student’s arrest put government power under scrutiny (Audio) ⁠44%

By Carolyne Heldman⁠59%

7/24/2026, 5:44:38 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Loss Aversion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.9% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 280 faulty-reasoning hits from 203 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠44% (15,689 of 27,655 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.70% of the article peer group.

PODCAST: Governor’s veto and student’s arrest put government power under scrutiny (Audio) 
Questions about how power Is exercised in Louisiana, as the governor vetoes more money for wrongfully convicted exonerees and a 14-year-old student is handcuffed and barred from her middle-school graduation. 
In this episode of Behind The Lens, reporters examine how government power can shape the lives of people caught within Louisiana’s criminal justice and education systems. 
Criminal justice reporter Bernard Smith discusses Gov. 
Jeff Landry’s veto of a widely supported bill that would have increased compensation for people who were wrongfully convicted and later exonerated. 
The story explores what the veto means for exonerees who lost years—sometimes decades—of their lives because of convictions for crimes they did not commit. 
Education reporter Vivi Smilgius reports on the case of a 14-year-old student who was led out of school in handcuffs after allegedly making a threat of violence. 
The incident raises questions about school safety, law enforcement involvement and how schools respond when children are accused of serious misconduct. 
Guests: Bernard Smith and Vivi Smilgius 
Host: Carolyne Heldman 
Theme music: Podington Bear 
Additional music: “Solo” by Podington Bear, soundofpicture.com 
Runtime: 24:55 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.8%Carolyne Heldman: 1.7%The Lens: 3.1%Confirmation Bias10.8%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.7%The Lens: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 1.1%The Lens: 2.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 1.3%The Lens: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 37.9%Carolyne Heldman: 19.4%The Lens: 5.4%Framing Effect37.9%This article: 11.8%Carolyne Heldman: 1.6%The Lens: 0.6%Loss Aversion11.8%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.7%The Lens: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 39.9%Carolyne Heldman: 19.6%The Lens: 5.9%Negativity Bias39.9%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 1.3%The Lens: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 1.3%The Lens: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.8%Carolyne Heldman: 0.8%The Lens: 2.7%Appeal to Authority10.8%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 2.2%The Lens: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 2.5%The Lens: 4.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 5.2%The Lens: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 3.4%The Lens: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.2%The Lens: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 1.7%The Lens: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.2%The Lens: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 14.8%Carolyne Heldman: 7.5%The Lens: 3.6%Biased Writer Voice14.8%This article: 11.8%Carolyne Heldman: 2.0%The Lens: 2.5%Indoctrination11.8%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 2.6%The Lens: 1.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carolyne Heldman: 1.7%The Lens: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

203 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers14%attributed speech174writer words
Selected voice

Jeff Landry

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words76% of attributed speech74% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-17.2 ptsWriter: 17.2%Jeff Landry: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-13.8 ptsWriter: 13.8%Jeff Landry: 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.