Jacobin61%

Burn the Constitution Once Again 83%

By Seth Ackerman0%

7/4/2026, 8:50:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Quote-first Misdirection, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 72.1% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 1,072 faulty-reasoning hits from 201 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74% and a BS Rank of 83% (3,906 of 21,771 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.10% of the article peer group.

In a 1988 memoir recounting his thirty-year tenure as chief Washington correspondent of the Sunday Times, the British journalist Henry Brandon recalled the flicker of disquiet he felt in 1964 as he watched the chaos and extremism of Barry Goldwater’s hard-right presidential campaign. 
He had wondered, at the time, if it was an omen of things to come. 
But looking back at the Goldwater interlude from the sunny vantage point of the Reagan years merely underscored, for Brandon, the fundamental placidity and moderation of American politics. 
“Despite the outward appearance of disorder and confusion, bordering on turmoil and chaos,” he reflected, “in reality the political shifts as usual were only minor. 
It was another example of the remarkable stability of the American political scene.” 
“The remarkable stability of the American political scene” is not a phrase one is apt to hear these days from British journalists. 
More typical is what Edward Luce, veteran Washington correspondent of the Financial Times, wrote in a recent column on the Trump administration’s penchant for “incinerating America’s traditions of law, civility and restraint”: “As America prepares to commemorate its 250th anniversary,” he warned, “the republic is flirting with its own funeral.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.9%Seth Ackerman: 6.6%Jacobin: 5.8%Confirmation Bias13.9%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 3.5%Jacobin: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Seth Ackerman: 2.7%Jacobin: 2.6%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 21.4%Seth Ackerman: 5.3%Jacobin: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic21.4%This article: 21.4%Seth Ackerman: 24.3%Jacobin: 1.7%Hindsight Bias21.4%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 39.8%Seth Ackerman: 10.0%Jacobin: 6.8%Framing Effect39.8%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 13.9%Seth Ackerman: 8.2%Jacobin: 0.3%Status Quo Bias13.9%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.9%Seth Ackerman: 3.5%Jacobin: 1.5%Optimism Bias13.9%This article: 24.9%Seth Ackerman: 13.1%Jacobin: 1.8%Pessimism Bias24.9%This article: 72.1%Seth Ackerman: 31.1%Jacobin: 8.1%Negativity Bias72.1%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 35.8%Seth Ackerman: 17.9%Jacobin: 0.8%Recency Bias35.8%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 12.4%Jacobin: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 3.1%Jacobin: 2.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 24.9%Seth Ackerman: 12.4%Jacobin: 1.2%Slippery Slope24.9%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.4%Seth Ackerman: 17.7%Jacobin: 8.0%Hasty Generalization17.4%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 27.4%Seth Ackerman: 14.3%Jacobin: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion27.4%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 32.3%Seth Ackerman: 8.1%Jacobin: 2.5%Anecdotal32.3%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 37.3%Seth Ackerman: 9.3%Jacobin: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)37.3%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 33.8%Seth Ackerman: 8.5%Jacobin: 1.4%Unattributed Quote33.8%This article: 39.8%Seth Ackerman: 22.4%Jacobin: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection39.8%This article: 27.4%Seth Ackerman: 17.0%Jacobin: 11.2%Biased Writer Voice27.4%This article: 24.9%Seth Ackerman: 6.8%Jacobin: 3.2%Indoctrination24.9%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 6.2%Jacobin: 7.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth Ackerman: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

201 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers51%attributed speech98writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageHenry Brandon • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageHenry Brandon • 25 words • 100.0% coverageHenry Brandon • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageEdward Luce • 50 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Edward Luce

100%flagged-word coverage
50 attributed words49% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Edward Luce: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+94.9 ptsWriter: 5.1%Edward Luce: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-56.1 ptsWriter: 56.1%Edward Luce: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-43.9 ptsWriter: 43.9%Edward Luce: 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.