Semafor⁠84%

News Corp accuses search engine Brave of AI copyright infringement ⁠74%

By Max Tani⁠0%

7/22/2026, 12:57:18 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31% saturation with 175 hits. Analysis detected 1,165 faulty-reasoning hits from 564 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (5,748 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.70% of the article peer group.

News Corp, the Murdoch family-owned parent company of The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, is suing an AI company that describes itself as “the world’s most complete non-Big Tech search engine.” 
On Tuesday, News Corp announced that it is suing Brave AI, a privacy-focused search engine with an AI sidebar tool that plugs into large language models. 
In its lawsuit, News Corp alleged that Brave masks its web crawlers such that publishers 
cannot detect or block them, and delivers “summaries” of news articles that are “verbatim or near verbatim copied content to enterprise customers, primarily AI companies.” 
The company also alleged that before March 2025, Brave scraped and sold copyrighted News Corp content to AI companies that were “in direct competition with the News Corp Companies’ own content licensing programs.” 
“Companies like Brave incorporated copyrighted works into their products and services to generate revenue for themselves, all while destroying the incentive for anyone to ever pay the very publishers who produced the content that Brave has monetized,” News Corp alleged in the complaint. 
The two companies had previously attempted to resolve this dispute outside of court; according to Tuesday’s filing, News Corp had tried to negotiate a licensing agreement with Brave for a year. 
But in February, Brave filed its own lawsuit against News Corp in response to a cease-and-desist from the news publisher, arguing that Brave AI was simply indexing website content, “which all search engine operators must do to exist.” 
The company also argued that News Corp was attempting to “bully Brave out of the market” on behalf of larger tech players like Google, with whom News Corp has existing business relationships. 
In its filing Tuesday, News Corp pushed back against Brave’s claims that its website indexing represents “fair use,” arguing that Brave’s AI was not transformative because it regurgitates information without adding anything new. 
In a statement, News Corp CEO Robert Thomson described the company as “content crooks and brand brigands.” 
“They have shamelessly stolen and then perfidiously profited from that pilfering by illicitly fencing our journalists’ work. 
Instead of a license, they have licentiously looted with blatant disregard to the severe damage done to the information eco-system,” he said. 
“This era of tacky tech trafficking must come to an end if journalism is to have a sustainable future. 
These byte burglars and bootleggers, these content contrabandists are seriously undermining the integrity of AI and IP.” 
The Murdoch-owned media companies historically have taken a more skeptical and at times pugilistic view towards tech platforms. 
Over the past several decades, patriarch Rupert Murdoch has accused Google of stealing his companies’ content and has at points argued that the search giant should be broken up. 
Still, the company’s leaders have increasingly leaned into partnerships with major tech platforms. 
After negotiating a series of licensing agreements with Google, in 2024, News Corp struck a $250 million licensing deal with OpenAI, and earlier this year, News Corp licensed content to Meta for $50 million a year. 
“We’re essentially an input company,” Thomson said in March. 
“The great threat in the age of AI is going to be to what you might call output companies. 
We’re an input in the way that semiconductors are an input, in the way that data centers are an input, in the way that energy is an input.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 26.8%Max Tani: 10.6%Semafor: 4.7%Confirmation Bias26.8%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 5.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.2%Max Tani: 1.1%Semafor: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic3.2%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Max Tani: 1.7%Semafor: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias5.0%This article: 3.4%Max Tani: 8.3%Semafor: 15.9%Framing Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.3%Max Tani: 0.8%Semafor: 0.8%Status Quo Bias2.3%This article: 5.5%Max Tani: 1.8%Semafor: 0.5%Sunk Cost Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 4.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Max Tani: 3.4%Semafor: 4.0%Pessimism Bias6.7%This article: 31.0%Max Tani: 10.3%Semafor: 12.8%Negativity Bias31.0%This article: 5.7%Max Tani: 4.0%Semafor: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 1.9%Semafor: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Max Tani: 2.2%Semafor: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.7%This article: 3.2%Max Tani: 1.1%Semafor: 2.1%Halo Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 4.3%Semafor: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.1%Max Tani: 1.7%Semafor: 3.3%Recency Bias5.1%This article: 4.6%Max Tani: 1.5%Semafor: 0.7%Primacy Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.0%Max Tani: 8.9%Semafor: 0.5%Ad Hominem9.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.1%Max Tani: 1.7%Semafor: 7.0%Appeal to Authority5.1%This article: 3.4%Max Tani: 1.1%Semafor: 2.5%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 3.4%Max Tani: 8.3%Semafor: 2.2%Slippery Slope3.4%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.2%Max Tani: 8.1%Semafor: 8.3%Hasty Generalization3.2%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.6%Max Tani: 22.6%Semafor: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion20.6%This article: 5.9%Max Tani: 2.0%Semafor: 1.2%Begging the Question5.9%This article: 5.9%Max Tani: 2.0%Semafor: 4.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.9%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 1.9%Semafor: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.4%Max Tani: 3.8%Semafor: 0.6%Composition/Division6.4%This article: 4.4%Max Tani: 1.5%Semafor: 2.0%Anecdotal4.4%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.7%Max Tani: 2.2%Semafor: 2.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.7%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.6%Max Tani: 2.5%Semafor: 5.1%Unattributed Quote7.6%This article: 3.0%Max Tani: 2.0%Semafor: 3.9%Quote-first Misdirection3.0%This article: 1.8%Max Tani: 0.6%Semafor: 9.4%Biased Writer Voice1.8%This article: 11.0%Max Tani: 4.8%Semafor: 1.7%Indoctrination11.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Tani: 0.0%Semafor: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

564 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers81%attributed speech108writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageNews Corp • 34 words • 0.0% coverageNews Corp • 26 words • 0.0% coverageNews Corp • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNews Corp • 25 words • 0.0% coverageNews Corp • 33 words • 0.0% coverageNews Corp • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageBrave AI • 38 words • 0.0% coverageBrave AI • 32 words • 0.0% coverageNews Corp • 33 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Thomson • 17 words • 100.0% coverageRobert Thomson • 17 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Thomson • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Thomson • 19 words • 100.0% coverageRobert Thomson • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRupert Murdoch • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Thomson • 9 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Thomson • 19 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Thomson • 28 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Robert Thomson

100%flagged-word coverage
148 attributed words32% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Indoctrination+12.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Robert Thomson: 12.8%12.8%Quote-first Misdirection+11.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Robert Thomson: 11.5%11.5%Biased Writer Voice-9.3 ptsWriter: 9.3%Robert Thomson: 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.