Deadline25%

Trump DOJ Subpoenas New York Times Reporters After Air Force One Story 23%

By Ted Johnson13%

7/11/2026, 12:45:21 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 19.8% saturation with 107 hits. Analysis detected 694 faulty-reasoning hits from 541 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.5% and a BS Rank of 23% (16,303 of 21,182 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.00% of the article peer group.

July 11, 2026 5:45am 
The New York Times building 
The New York Times said that a group of its journalists received subpoenas from the Justice Department after their report on the lack of certain security features on Donald Trump ‘s new Air Force One . 
The Times said that those who received subpoenas included Julian E. 
Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt, who reported this week that there were security concerns about the new Air Force One, as Trump left the NATO summit in Turkey in the old aircraft. 
That included the lack of antimissile capabilities in the new aircraft, a Boeing 747-8 that was donated by the government of Qatar. 
Oregon AG Drops Demand For Records & Motion To Delay Paramount-Warner Bros. 
Discovery Merger 
New York Times Alleges Trump Administration's Reverse Discrimination Lawsuit Was Retaliation For Its Reporting On EEOC 
The subpoenas, according to the Times, asked the reporters to testify before a grand jury on Wednesday but do not contain many details, other than that they were being sought “in regard to an alleged violation of federal criminal law.” 
The subpoenas were issued by Jay Clayton, who is the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, the Times reported. 
David McCraw, senior vice president and deputy general counsel at the Times, said in a statement that the “appearance of Federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects.” 
McCraw added, “Our journalists report the facts and advance the American public’s right to know how their government is operating and their taxpayer dollars are being used. 
This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs.” 
Per the Times, an FBI official asked that the story be held, characterizing it as an issue of national security. 
A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediate return a request for comment. 
Few days go by when Trump doesn’t lash out at the media, but in his second term, his administration has been more aggressive in using enforcement and regulatory powers against media outlets. 
In January, federal agents conducted a search of the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, seizing such things as her phones and laptops. 
The search was part of an investigation of a government contractor, but Natanson had reported extensively on Trump’s war on the civil service and the impact on the federal workforce. 
The Times on Friday filed a countersuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming that a reverse discrimination claim was in fact a retaliatory action because of its news reporting. 
The Times also has challenged new press restrictions at the Pentagon, and a federal judge has so far found that they violate the First Amendment. 
Disney’s Live-Action ‘Moana’ Lost At Sea With $40M-$45M U.S. 
Opening 
Morgan Spector & Rebecca Hall Eyed To Lead Netflix Series Based On 2025 Dan Brown Book 
Meta Disables New AI Image Generator Days After CAA & SAG-AFTRA Trashed It 
Sells Stake To Dept. 
M; Michael Schaefer Named CCO; TV Unit Launches 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.5%Ted Johnson: 3.1%Deadline: 2.3%Confirmation Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.8%Deadline: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 1.8%Deadline: 3.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.2%Deadline: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.3%Deadline: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 1.2%Deadline: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Ted Johnson: 4.0%Deadline: 6.4%Framing Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 1.3%Deadline: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.9%Deadline: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 1.1%Deadline: 2.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.4%Deadline: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Ted Johnson: 5.5%Deadline: 6.1%Negativity Bias15.7%This article: 5.0%Ted Johnson: 3.4%Deadline: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias5.0%This article: 5.5%Ted Johnson: 0.4%Deadline: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error5.5%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.3%Deadline: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.2%Deadline: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.3%Deadline: 6.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Ted Johnson: 0.8%Deadline: 1.3%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.3%Deadline: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.8%Deadline: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.5%Deadline: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.0%Ted Johnson: 4.4%Deadline: 4.0%Appeal to Authority5.0%This article: 5.7%Ted Johnson: 1.3%Deadline: 1.0%False Dilemma5.7%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.4%Deadline: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.9%Ted Johnson: 3.0%Deadline: 3.5%Hasty Generalization5.9%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.7%Deadline: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.1%Deadline: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.7%Ted Johnson: 4.5%Deadline: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion8.7%This article: 5.5%Ted Johnson: 1.3%Deadline: 0.6%Begging the Question5.5%This article: 7.9%Ted Johnson: 1.7%Deadline: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.9%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.6%Deadline: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.7%Deadline: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.4%Ted Johnson: 1.7%Deadline: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.4%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.3%Deadline: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.8%Ted Johnson: 1.7%Deadline: 3.0%Unattributed Quote19.8%This article: 8.7%Ted Johnson: 1.0%Deadline: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection8.7%This article: 5.9%Ted Johnson: 1.9%Deadline: 6.4%Biased Writer Voice5.9%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.7%Deadline: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.6%Deadline: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Johnson: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Ted Johnson: 0.6%Deadline: 2.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.6%

541 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers37%attributed speech342writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 36 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageJay Clayton • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDavid McCraw • 47 words • 100.0% coverageDavid McCraw • 27 words • 0.0% coverageDavid McCraw • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

David McCraw

100%flagged-word coverage
105 attributed words53% of attributed speech51% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Quote-first Misdirection+44.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%David McCraw: 44.8%44.8%Unattributed Quote+27.2 ptsWriter: 17.5%David McCraw: 44.8%44.8%Biased Writer Voice-9.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%David McCraw: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%David McCraw: 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.