Meet the New New York Focus Membership Program ⁠43%

By Rebecca Klein⁠0%

8/7/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Loss Aversion, and Halo Effect, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 56.3% saturation with 183 hits. Analysis detected 759 faulty-reasoning hits from 325 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠43% (18,455 of 31,900 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.90% of the article peer group.

When we launched New York Focus in 2020, we knew New York desperately needed more accountability journalism focused on the halls of power across the state. 
But would anyone pay attention? 
And would anyone help us build a newsroom where that work could live? 
Almost six years later, I’m happy to say that the answer to both questions is a resounding yes! 
Every investigation , every explainer , and every action taken in response to our work only happened because readers like you supported us along the way. 
Today, I’m excited to share something we’ve been working on to make sure our supporters feel even more a part of our work: a redesigned membership program. 
We want supporting our work to feel like joining a community, not just donating online or cutting a check. 
Membership now comes in four tiers, each with benefits we think you’ll enjoy exploring: 
Reader (up to $99/year or $9.99/month) — our monthly member newsletter, invitations to member-only gatherings, and virtual post-publication AMAs with the reporters behind the stories 
Steward ($100+/year or $10+/month) — everything above, plus participation in our reader-powered explainers and a 15% discount in our merch store 
Champion ($500+/year or $50+/month) — everything above, plus access to quarterly newsroom visits (in person or over Zoom), “First Read” briefings on our major investigations before they publish, a 25% merch discount, and a New York Focus hat 
Executive Chamber ($1,500/year or $150/month) — everything above, plus invitations to a select number of major donor gatherings 
Regardless of the level you join at, you’ll be playing an essential role in making sure our reporting stays independent and free. 
If you’re already a member, we can’t thank you enough. 
You’ll be seeing these benefits begin rolling out in the coming months. 
If you’ve been meaning to join us, there’s no time like the present. 
Please join or upgrade your membership today. 
With deep gratitude, 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 1.7%Confirmation Bias8.0%This article: 14.2%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.5%Anchoring Bias14.2%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 2.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.5%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.3%Hindsight Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Rebecca Klein: 2.9%New York Focus: 2.9%Framing Effect12.3%This article: 15.7%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.5%Loss Aversion15.7%This article: 11.7%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.4%Status Quo Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Rebecca Klein: 2.8%New York Focus: 1.6%Optimism Bias5.5%This article: 5.5%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 1.2%Pessimism Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 6.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 22.8%Rebecca Klein: 4.0%New York Focus: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias22.8%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.3%In-Group Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.6%Halo Effect14.5%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.5%Recency Bias5.5%This article: 3.1%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.2%Primacy Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 1.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 2.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.8%Rebecca Klein: 3.4%New York Focus: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion10.8%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.7%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.4%Burden of Proof3.7%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 12.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 1.3%Biased Writer Voice12.0%This article: 5.8%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.2%Indoctrination5.8%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Klein: 0.0%New York Focus: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 56.3%Rebecca Klein: 31.4%New York Focus: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…56.3%

325 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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