Deadline⁠27%

Trump Booed During World Cup Final Telecast ⁠61%

By Tom Tapp⁠85%

7/19/2026, 5:42:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 378 faulty-reasoning hits from 153 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠61% (8,687 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.30% of the article peer group.

The crowd at today’s World Cup Final cheered wildly for Jennifer Hudson’s otherworldly rendition of “The Star Spangled Banner. 
” But when Fox cut from Hudson to a shot of President Donald Trump in his box, the cheers turned to boos. 
Fox stayed with the shot of Trump for just a few seconds before cutting to an aerial shot during which the boos can still be heard. 
After the game was over, the president was again booed as he walked onto the field to present the teams with their medals. 
The change in tone could be heard in back of the music and narration on the broadcast. 
It’s not the first time Trump has been booed at a sporting event. 
He was booed during Game 3 of last month’s NBA Finals. 
He also got a smattering of boos when he attended the Super Bowl in 2025. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 22.9%Tom Tapp: 2.1%Deadline: 2.4%Confirmation Bias22.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 1.6%Deadline: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 26.8%Tom Tapp: 5.0%Deadline: 3.1%Availability Heuristic26.8%This article: 9.8%Tom Tapp: 3.6%Deadline: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic9.8%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 3.3%Deadline: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.0%Tom Tapp: 13.0%Deadline: 6.5%Framing Effect19.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 1.1%Deadline: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.9%Deadline: 0.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 34.0%Tom Tapp: 11.6%Deadline: 6.7%Negativity Bias34.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 1.6%Deadline: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 1.2%Deadline: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 1.6%Deadline: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Tom Tapp: 10.8%Deadline: 6.1%Halo Effect12.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 32.0%Tom Tapp: 3.8%Deadline: 1.3%Recency Bias32.0%This article: 12.4%Tom Tapp: 2.7%Deadline: 0.5%Primacy Effect12.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 3.1%Deadline: 3.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 1.4%Deadline: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.3%Tom Tapp: 4.0%Deadline: 3.5%Hasty Generalization18.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 1.6%Deadline: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 1.9%Deadline: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 1.1%Deadline: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.4%Tom Tapp: 6.0%Deadline: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 1.1%Deadline: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 7.3%Deadline: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.1%Tom Tapp: 1.6%Deadline: 2.9%Unattributed Quote11.1%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 21.6%Tom Tapp: 15.1%Deadline: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice21.6%This article: 12.4%Tom Tapp: 1.1%Deadline: 1.0%Indoctrination12.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Tapp: 0.0%Deadline: 2.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

153 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker17%attributed speech127writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageFox • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Fox

100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+94.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Fox: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-15.0 ptsWriter: 15.0%Fox: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-13.4 ptsWriter: 13.4%Fox: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.