Times journalists face subpoena over Air Force One security story ⁠22%

By CK Smith⁠42%

7/11/2026, 6:46:28 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 38.9% saturation with 148 hits. Analysis detected 568 faulty-reasoning hits from 380 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠22% (16,166 of 20,516 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.80% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration’s fight with the press has moved from public criticism to a legal battle, with multiple New York Times journalists receiving subpoenas connected to the newspaper’s reporting about security concerns involving the new Air Force One . 
The subpoenas seek testimony from Times reporters who worked on a story examining questions surrounding the security capabilities of the aircraft, which was gifted to President Donald Trump by Qatar . 
The journalists were reportedly ordered to appear before a federal grand jury. 
The administration has argued that it is investigating a possible unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information. 
The Times, however, has criticized the move as a threat to press freedom and the ability of journalists to report on matters involving national security. 
The dispute highlights a longstanding conflict between government secrecy and the public’s right to know. 
Officials have a legitimate interest in protecting information about military and presidential security. 
But journalists have long argued that government officials sometimes use classification rules not only to protect national security, but also to avoid scrutiny of controversial decisions. 
That tension has defined some of the most significant First Amendment battles in American history, including disputes over classified documents , confidential sources and government efforts to identify journalists’ sources. 
Start your day with essential news from Salon. 
Sign up for our free morning newsletter , Crash Course. 
The Air Force One reporting raised questions about whether officials moved too quickly to place a foreign-donated aircraft into presidential service and whether security concerns were fully addressed before the aircraft was used. 
The administration’s focus is on who disclosed the information. 
The broader question raised by press advocates for years is why such information became a matter of public concern in the first place. 
The legal battle could become another test of the balance between national security and the role of the press as a government watchdog. 
Read more 
about the U.S. and Qatar 
“There’s a limit on blatant corruption”: Raskin demands Hegseth return Trump’s Qatari jet 
Trump’s new plane is “a flying palace” from Qatar royal family 
No, Qatar isn’t taking over an Idaho air force base 
The post Times journalists face subpoena over Air Force One security story appeared first on Salon.com . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.8%CK Smith: 1.9%Salon: 5.2%Confirmation Bias10.8%This article: 8.2%CK Smith: 0.3%Salon: 0.4%Anchoring Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 3.0%Salon: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.9%CK Smith: 2.0%Salon: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic7.9%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.7%Salon: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 2.0%Salon: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 38.9%CK Smith: 13.0%Salon: 7.2%Framing Effect38.9%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.5%Salon: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.4%CK Smith: 0.6%Salon: 0.3%Status Quo Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.3%Salon: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%CK Smith: 1.1%Salon: 2.2%Pessimism Bias6.1%This article: 31.8%CK Smith: 6.8%Salon: 10.9%Negativity Bias31.8%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.6%Salon: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.1%Salon: 2.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.8%Salon: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.8%Salon: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.3%Salon: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.8%Salon: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%CK Smith: 0.7%Salon: 0.5%Primacy Effect3.9%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.1%Salon: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.5%Salon: 3.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.5%Salon: 1.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.1%Salon: 3.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 6.1%CK Smith: 2.4%Salon: 2.3%False Dilemma6.1%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.1%Salon: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 3.9%Salon: 10.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 2.6%CK Smith: 0.1%Salon: 0.2%Red Herring2.6%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.3%Salon: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 2.3%Salon: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.8%Salon: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 2.5%Salon: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.4%Salon: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.2%Salon: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.4%Salon: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.5%Salon: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.9%CK Smith: 1.9%Salon: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.9%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.2%Salon: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.1%Salon: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.3%CK Smith: 2.0%Salon: 2.1%Unattributed Quote6.3%This article: 6.3%CK Smith: 2.4%Salon: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection6.3%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 6.3%Salon: 15.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.0%Salon: 2.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.3%Salon: 7.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.3%Salon: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%CK Smith: 3.1%Salon: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.2%

380 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers13%attributed speech330writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageSalon • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSalon.com • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The New York Times

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words50% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote-7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%The New York Times: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%The New York Times: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%The New York Times: 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.