WPLN News⁠34%

NashVillager Podcast: Goodbye Hollywood, hello Nashville? ⁠15%

By Nina Cardona⁠14%

7/20/2026, 5:03:10 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Framing Effect, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 30% saturation with 24 hits. Analysis detected 152 faulty-reasoning hits from 80 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 24.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠15% (24,330 of 28,360 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 85.80% of the article peer group.

Could Music City become a Film City, too? 
Tennessee officials have made some attempt to lure a major motion picture studio to relocate here. 
That raises questions about what a move might actually bring. 
Plus, the local news for July 20, 2026, and IMAX. 
Credits: 
This is a production of Nashville Public Radio. 
Host/producer: Nina Cardona 
Editor: LaTonya Turner 
Additional support: Mack Linebaugh, Tony Gonzalez, Megan Jones and the staff of WPLN and WNXP 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.6%WPLN: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.0%Nina Cardona: 3.2%WPLN: 2.8%Availability Heuristic20.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.0%WPLN: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 2.1%WPLN: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Nina Cardona: 7.5%WPLN: 3.4%Framing Effect17.5%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%Nina Cardona: 0.6%WPLN: 2.2%Optimism Bias10.0%This article: 7.5%Nina Cardona: 0.2%WPLN: 0.8%Pessimism Bias7.5%This article: 12.5%Nina Cardona: 5.2%WPLN: 5.8%Negativity Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 12.5%Nina Cardona: 0.4%WPLN: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error12.5%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Nina Cardona: 0.6%WPLN: 1.6%Halo Effect10.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.8%WPLN: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Nina Cardona: 1.2%WPLN: 0.2%Primacy Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 30.0%Nina Cardona: 1.2%WPLN: 2.5%Appeal to Authority30.0%This article: 7.5%Nina Cardona: 3.1%WPLN: 0.8%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 3.3%WPLN: 2.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.5%Nina Cardona: 1.0%WPLN: 0.6%Burden of Proof12.5%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.8%WPLN: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.0%Nina Cardona: 0.3%WPLN: 0.1%Middle Ground10.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 1.1%WPLN: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.5%Nina Cardona: 2.2%WPLN: 1.5%Biased Writer Voice7.5%This article: 12.5%Nina Cardona: 0.4%WPLN: 0.8%Indoctrination12.5%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Cardona: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.5%Nina Cardona: 1.5%WPLN: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…12.5%

80 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers36%attributed speech51writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
8 attributed words28% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Indoctrination-19.6 ptsWriter: 19.6%Nashville Public Radio: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -19.6 ptsWriter: 19.6%Nashville Public Radio: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.8 ptsWriter: 11.8%Nashville Public Radio: 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.