KQED⁠78%

San Francisco Is Quietly Removing 911 Peer Responders ⁠51%

By Ericka Cruz Guevarra⁠84% Sydney Johnson⁠77% Gabriela Glueck⁠52% Alan Montecillo⁠81%

8/5/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Slippery Slope, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 37.3% saturation with 41 hits. Analysis detected 226 faulty-reasoning hits from 110 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (14,134 of 28,846 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.00% of the article peer group.

This episode contains mentions of suicide. 
If you or someone you know is in crisis, call or text 988. 
Starting August 14, San Francisco will remove peer specialists from its 911 response. 
These peer responders, equipped with both training and personal experience with issues like homelessness and addiction, say the decision is a regressive step in the city’s approach to mental and behavioral health emergencies. 
Links: 
These Peers Provided Alternative 911 Responders. 
San Francisco Is Removing Them 
Some members of the KQED podcast team are represented by The Screen Actors Guild, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, San Francisco-Northern California Local. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 1.5%CalMatters: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 5.0%CalMatters: 2.9%Availability Heuristic5.5%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 1.7%CalMatters: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 37.3%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 13.2%CalMatters: 6.0%Framing Effect37.3%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.8%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.5%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 2.2%CalMatters: 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 2.6%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 37.3%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 11.0%CalMatters: 6.2%Negativity Bias37.3%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.2%CalMatters: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 3.0%CalMatters: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 3.9%CalMatters: 2.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.8%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 2.5%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.7%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 1.8%CalMatters: 3.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 2.4%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 30.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.7%Slippery Slope30.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 3.7%CalMatters: 3.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.8%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 4.5%CalMatters: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion11.8%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 2.4%CalMatters: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 3.0%CalMatters: 3.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 1.1%CalMatters: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.6%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 30.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 4.1%CalMatters: 0.7%Unattributed Quote30.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 37.3%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 8.2%CalMatters: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice37.3%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 1.9%CalMatters: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ericka Cruz Guevarra: 1.4%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

110 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.