July highlights from The Richmonder ⁠81%

By Beth Weisbrod⁠94%

8/1/2026, 4:00:10 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 34.4% saturation with 87 hits. Analysis detected 664 faulty-reasoning hits from 253 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (5,882 of 30,209 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.50% of the article peer group.

Our most popular feature has returned! 
The Richmonder 25 is here! 
This is the second annual highlighting of 25 beautiful humans who make Richmond better. 
Make sure to check out their stories in our newsletters throughout the summer, and then we hope you’ll join us to honor them at a festive celebration at the Hippodrome in September, featuring keynote speaker and former UVA football player Perris Jones. 
Our 2025 event was magical, and thanks to generous support from Estes, this year’s is shaping up to be even better. 
The event sold out last year, so click here now if you don’t want to miss it. 
And I don’t think you do. 
The Richmonder goes regional 
July saw the beginning of our full-time coverage of Chesterfield, the region's most populous but possibly least-covered county. 
The very talented Eleanor Shaw, fresh from her leadership of JMU’s student newspaper, The Breeze, has already published stories on Google’s planned data center, a free speech lawsuit, drones as first responders and much more. 
In less than a month, she has turned on the lights on important issues impacting the region. 
Eleanor is with us thanks to a matching grant from Report for America. 
If you'd like to support her work and double your donation, you can do so here. 
One last thing 
Come see us at the St. 
Stephen's farmers market on August 8 and pick up some Richmonder merch! 
Fingers crossed for an August free of heat domes. 
Reach out anytime, 
Beth 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 1.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Beth Weisbrod: 1.8%The Richmonder: 1.5%Availability Heuristic7.1%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Beth Weisbrod: 1.7%The Richmonder: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias6.7%This article: 22.9%Beth Weisbrod: 5.7%The Richmonder: 2.3%Framing Effect22.9%This article: 29.6%Beth Weisbrod: 7.4%The Richmonder: 1.1%Loss Aversion29.6%This article: 7.1%Beth Weisbrod: 1.8%The Richmonder: 0.7%Status Quo Bias7.1%This article: 8.3%Beth Weisbrod: 2.1%The Richmonder: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect8.3%This article: 14.2%Beth Weisbrod: 9.7%The Richmonder: 3.6%Optimism Bias14.2%This article: 3.6%Beth Weisbrod: 0.9%The Richmonder: 0.3%Pessimism Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 2.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Beth Weisbrod: 2.0%The Richmonder: 0.8%In-Group Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 19.4%Beth Weisbrod: 13.1%The Richmonder: 2.9%Halo Effect19.4%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.5%Beth Weisbrod: 2.9%The Richmonder: 0.5%Recency Bias11.5%This article: 6.7%Beth Weisbrod: 1.7%The Richmonder: 0.1%Primacy Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.8%Beth Weisbrod: 7.6%The Richmonder: 1.9%Appeal to Authority13.8%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.7%Beth Weisbrod: 1.7%The Richmonder: 1.5%Hasty Generalization6.7%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 2.3%The Richmonder: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 22.5%Beth Weisbrod: 10.0%The Richmonder: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion22.5%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.3%Beth Weisbrod: 2.1%The Richmonder: 1.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.3%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.7%Beth Weisbrod: 1.7%The Richmonder: 1.6%Anecdotal6.7%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.1%Beth Weisbrod: 1.8%The Richmonder: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.1%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.4%Beth Weisbrod: 15.9%The Richmonder: 1.2%Biased Writer Voice15.4%This article: 2.4%Beth Weisbrod: 0.6%The Richmonder: 0.3%Indoctrination2.4%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Weisbrod: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 34.4%Beth Weisbrod: 30.8%The Richmonder: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…34.4%

253 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker0.4%attributed speech252writer words
Selected voice

Beth

0%flagged-word coverage
1 attributed words100% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -34.5 ptsWriter: 34.5%Beth: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-15.5 ptsWriter: 15.5%Beth: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%Beth: 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.