BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Begging the Question, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.1% saturation with 258 hits. Analysis detected 1,642 faulty-reasoning hits from 714 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.2% and a BS Rank of 64% (7,389 of 20,516 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.00% of the article peer group.

Progressive groups are demanding that Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence oppose Jay Clayton’s nomination as director of national intelligence, pointing to his role in an attempt to intimidate the New York Times over critical reporting on the Trump administration. 
Some key Democrats, however, have so far not committed to opposing President Donald Trump’s nominee for the nation’s top intelligence job. 
Clayton, who serves as the top federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, signed the subpoenas sent Friday that targeted New York Times journalists for their reporting on serious security flaws in the Qatari-donated Air Force One jet. 
“It seems Jay Clayton is up to his eyeballs in sending intimidation subpoenas to reporters.” 
Two Democrats on the intelligence committee did not indicate whether the subpoenas were a dealbreaker for Clayton’s nomination, which is set to be the subject of a Wednesday hearing. 
Sen. 
Mark Warner, D-Va., the vice chair of the committee, has not said whether he intends to vote in favor of Clayton’s nomination. 
He previously praised Clayton for having the “right temperament” when Trump tapped him, but has said he still wants to press the prosecutor about whether he will use the DNI post to pursue Trump’s 2020 election obsession. 
Asked for comment about the subpoenas Tuesday, Warner said he anticipated that Clayton would be quizzed about the matter during his hearing. 
“I think it’s important that we stand up for the independence of the press,” he said. 
When asked by The Intercept whether the subpoenas were disqualifying for Clayton’s nomination, fellow intelligence committee member Sen. 
Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said, “I’ve got questions about it.” 
Are Jeffries and Schumer Getting Ready to Greenlight Domestic Spy Power for Trump? 
The cautious position staked out by the Democrats stood in sharp contrast to that of Sen. 
Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the committee’s longest serving member and a frequent skeptic of the intelligence agencies when it comes to civil liberties . 
In a social media post Sunday, Wyden noted that federal agents hand-delivered some of the subpoenas to the reporters who co-authored the article. 
“It seems Jay Clayton is up to his eyeballs in sending intimidation subpoenas to reporters and armed thugs to their homes,” Wyden said. 
“This is not acceptable in a DNI.” 
Dems Pushing for Clayton 
The subpoenas came at an awkward moment for some Democrats in Congress aligned with the intelligence community. 
Those Democrats, including Connecticut Rep. 
Jim Himes , the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, had hoped to swiftly confirm Clayton in order to cut short the temporary appointment of housing czar Bill Pulte as director of national intelligence. 
Clayton was seen by Democrats such as Himes as an acceptable alternative to Pulte, who was handed the reins of the country’s intelligence apparatuses with a mandate from Trump to stoke baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. 
Some Democrats like Wyden, however, have noted that Clayton himself has also publicly indulged in election fraud conspiracy theories . 
His role in the subpoenas should make him a non-starter for intelligence chief, a coalition of progressive groups including Indivisible and Reporters Without Borders said in a letter Monday. 
“Members of Congress across the aisle have embraced Clayton as a more respectable option than Pulte and hope to see the nomination process quickly,” the groups said. 
“Measuring Clayton’s qualifications against Pulte’s rather than the demands of the office would be a detriment to national security.” 
Caitlin Vogus, a senior adviser with Freedom of the Press Foundation, said intelligence committee members should grill Clayton over the subpoenas. 
This Is How Trump’s Department of Justice Spied on Journalists 
“Anyone who hides behind fabricated ‘national security’ claims to demand journalists expose confidential sources can’t be trusted to lead America’s intelligence agencies,” Vogus said in a statement to The Intercept. 
“Senators should demand to know whether Clayton issued these outrageous subpoenas at the explicit behest of the White House, and whether he’d use similar tactics as DNI against journalists and whistleblowers who expose intelligence failures or abuses.” 
The post Trump’s Intel Pick Played Key Role in NYT Subpoenas  But Some Democrats Still On the Fence appeared first on The Intercept . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.8%Matt Sledge: 2.8%The Intercept: 5.2%Confirmation Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Matt Sledge: 2.4%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic3.2%This article: 5.6%Matt Sledge: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic5.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.7%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.8%Matt Sledge: 11.2%The Intercept: 9.3%Framing Effect16.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Matt Sledge: 1.4%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias7.4%This article: 36.1%Matt Sledge: 12.0%The Intercept: 12.5%Negativity Bias36.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.6%The Intercept: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.4%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 5.2%Matt Sledge: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias5.2%This article: 3.2%Matt Sledge: 1.8%The Intercept: 1.8%In-Group Bias3.2%This article: 2.4%Matt Sledge: 1.0%The Intercept: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Matt Sledge: 2.7%The Intercept: 2.5%Ad Hominem7.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.8%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.5%Matt Sledge: 3.0%The Intercept: 3.5%Appeal to Authority5.5%This article: 6.7%Matt Sledge: 1.9%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma6.7%This article: 5.2%Matt Sledge: 1.5%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope5.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.0%Matt Sledge: 5.7%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.8%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon3.8%This article: 25.6%Matt Sledge: 6.3%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion25.6%This article: 20.2%Matt Sledge: 1.6%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question20.2%This article: 7.3%Matt Sledge: 2.6%The Intercept: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.2%Matt Sledge: 0.7%The Intercept: 0.8%Burden of Proof5.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.1%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.6%Matt Sledge: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground2.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 5.3%Matt Sledge: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy5.3%This article: 8.0%Matt Sledge: 2.6%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote8.0%This article: 4.5%Matt Sledge: 2.1%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection4.5%This article: 11.5%Matt Sledge: 8.4%The Intercept: 10.7%Biased Writer Voice11.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.4%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 11.2%Matt Sledge: 4.9%The Intercept: 6.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

714 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers42%attributed speech414writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMark Warner • 37 words • 0.0% coverageMark Warner • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMark Warner • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMark Kelly • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageRon Wyden • 23 words • 0.0% coverageRon Wyden • 23 words • 0.0% coverageRon Wyden • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageIndivisible • 29 words • 0.0% coverageIndivisible • 27 words • 0.0% coverageIndivisible • 19 words • 0.0% coverageCaitlin Vogus • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageCaitlin Vogus • 30 words • 0.0% coverageCaitlin Vogus • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Caitlin Vogus

100%flagged-word coverage
88 attributed words29% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-19.8 ptsWriter: 19.8%Caitlin Vogus: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-19.3 ptsWriter: 19.3%Caitlin Vogus: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-13.8 ptsWriter: 13.8%Caitlin Vogus: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Caitlin Vogus: 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.