Donnelly: Communication key in policing, public safety 42%

By Ann Donnelly57%

8/1/2026, 6:01:02 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 17.7% saturation with 102 hits. Analysis detected 759 faulty-reasoning hits from 577 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.4% and a BS Rank of 42% (16,435 of 28,234 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.20% of the article peer group.

Vancouver is in the midst of a public brouhaha over policing policies on city streets. 
The city manager, city attorney and police chief recently announced new law enforcement procedures. 
They did so without consulting police officers who patrol the streets, or the elected city council or local business owners. 
In hindsight, as city council members stressed in a July 27 meeting, both the substance of the issue and its communication could have been improved. 
On July 21, the city of Vancouver surprised residents and even some city council members by announcing new police orders covering low-level misdemeanor crimes: Officers will not cite or arrest in cases of shoplifting, trespassing, or possession of a controlled substance, among other crimes. 
They will instead be referred to the City Attorney’s Office for evaluation and prosecution. 
As the rationale for the new policy, Chief Troy Price pointed to the scarcity of public defense attorneys in the court system, and especially to court-ordered caps in the number of cases they may handle. 
Some 50 cases have recently been dismissed in court, he emphasized, with alleged law-breakers therefore facing no legal consequences. 
City Manager Lon Pluckhahn, effectively the city’s CEO, explained that the objective was to “prioritize cases with the greatest impact on safety,” and to avoid “clogging the courts” while holding lawbreakers ultimately accountable. 
Police officers were not buying the rationale. 
Vancouver Police Officers’ Guild President Jeff Anaya, in an interview with KATU, called the policy “crazy,” putting officers in a “precarious position” in which lawbreakers know “we can’t do anything about” (misdemeanors). 
Anaya stated he “has no idea” why the decision was made, and that officers are “upset about it.” 
The result, Anaya said, was lawbreakers will “commit more crimes.” 
City Councilor Bart Hansen stated he learned about the police chief’s directive through the guild press release. 
Vancouver business owners were also taken by surprise. 
From the heart of the downtown community, one owner commented: “This is one of the most shortsighted initiatives with guaranteed unintended consequences. 
 This new policy  will empower criminals and thieves. 
 It’s as if we are publicly announcing and welcoming criminals into our community.” 
In response, on Monday, in a session lasting more than an hour, city council members pointedly questioned Pluckhahn, City Attorney Nena Cook and the police chief. 
Cook addressed the concerns, claiming “it’s not open season in the city of Vancouver,” and promising “we will prosecute those cases.” 
The responsibility will shift to her department to evaluate, route and prosecute the cases to maintain more consistent and efficient accountability than under the previous system. 
Price emphasized that police procedures “on the front end” (where officers interact with the public) will not change. 
Residents will still “call 911.” 
Pluckhahn assured the council that “we support all our officers.” 
In short, council members asked all the questions that should have been addressed much earlier. 
Hansen called the hasty approach “unacceptable” and directed Pluckhahn to “fix this.” 
The scarcity of defense attorneys, at the heart of Vancouver’s policing issue, is not easily solved. 
Appropriating more money alone will not entice young lawyers into this practice. 
Though a temporary challenge, as emphasized by Pluckhahn, the solutions will take time and the creative efforts of experts in various fields. 
In the meantime, city leaders must add professional law enforcement, council members and the public to the conversation. 
And, as they all agreed on Monday, they must communicate more effectively. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Ann Donnelly: 1.2%The Columbian: 3.5%Availability Heuristic4.7%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.9%Ann Donnelly: 6.3%The Columbian: 0.7%Hindsight Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.6%The Columbian: 6.8%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.2%Ann Donnelly: 1.3%The Columbian: 1.0%Status Quo Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.5%Ann Donnelly: 2.8%The Columbian: 2.6%Optimism Bias7.5%This article: 17.7%Ann Donnelly: 8.2%The Columbian: 2.3%Pessimism Bias17.7%This article: 14.4%Ann Donnelly: 8.4%The Columbian: 9.4%Negativity Bias14.4%This article: 4.5%Ann Donnelly: 1.1%The Columbian: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 1.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Ann Donnelly: 0.4%The Columbian: 1.3%Halo Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%Ann Donnelly: 0.8%The Columbian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.6%Ann Donnelly: 2.6%The Columbian: 3.4%Appeal to Authority10.6%This article: 2.1%Ann Donnelly: 0.5%The Columbian: 1.1%False Dilemma2.1%This article: 1.7%Ann Donnelly: 4.9%The Columbian: 1.3%Slippery Slope1.7%This article: 5.7%Ann Donnelly: 1.4%The Columbian: 0.3%Circular Reasoning5.7%This article: 5.5%Ann Donnelly: 3.3%The Columbian: 3.4%Hasty Generalization5.5%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.0%Ann Donnelly: 8.8%The Columbian: 4.8%Appeal to Emotion8.0%This article: 3.6%Ann Donnelly: 0.9%The Columbian: 0.6%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 6.8%Ann Donnelly: 1.7%The Columbian: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.8%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.8%Ann Donnelly: 1.0%The Columbian: 1.4%Anecdotal3.8%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.8%Ann Donnelly: 1.0%The Columbian: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.8%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.1%Ann Donnelly: 0.8%The Columbian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity3.1%This article: 2.1%Ann Donnelly: 0.5%The Columbian: 0.5%Special Pleading2.1%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.8%Ann Donnelly: 1.9%The Columbian: 2.5%Unattributed Quote3.8%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 1.0%The Columbian: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 1.9%The Columbian: 6.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 5.2%Ann Donnelly: 1.3%The Columbian: 1.0%Indoctrination5.2%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Donnelly: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

577 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers44%attributed speech326writer words
Selected voice

Jeff Anaya

100%flagged-word coverage
60 attributed words24% of attributed speech58% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Indoctrination-9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%Jeff Anaya: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%Jeff Anaya: 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.