BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 45.2% saturation with 323 hits. Analysis detected 2,167 faulty-reasoning hits from 714 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.4% and a BS Rank of 57% (8,853 of 20,438 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.70% of the article peer group.

More than half the House Democrats voted Wednesday to strip $3.3 billion in U.S. aid from Israel, the most substantial signal yet that once rock-solid bipartisan support for the country is disintegrating in the aftermath of its war in Gaza that has killed thousands of Palestinians. 
The vote tally, 104-314, was not enough to attach the amendment to a broader national security spending bill, but stands as a stark accounting of the shifting attitudes that are dividing the Democratic Party and the nation over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war strategy, now approaching its third year. 
The House’s Democratic leadership split over the issue in what was largely seen as a test vote ahead of the U.S. midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. 
More than 100 Democrats voted for the amendment to strip the foreign military aid money, and almost as many voted against. 
Most Republicans voted to preserve the Israel aid. 
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who announced he opposed the measure that would zero out the aid, nevertheless said “that for the good of Israel and the Palestinian people, American policy in the Middle East must change.” 
Jeffries said in a letter to colleagues, ahead of a private caucus meeting this week where he spoke on the issue, that he believes “there are more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary when it comes to the far-right Netanyahu government.” 
Democrats divided over US support for Israel 
The deepening divide over Israel threatens to upend the Democratic Party as it faces an energized left flank that is promoting self-proclaimed democratic socialists in a handful of marquee House races, particularly last month in New York. 
While more traditional Democrats have stood with U.S. support for Israel, a growing number have distanced themselves from Netanyahu’s strategy as the war has dragged on in a prolonged response to the Oct. 
7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. 
According to an AP-NORC poll this month, about one-third of U.S. adults  including roughly half of Democrats  believe Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians during the war in Gaza, an accusation that’s been leveled by some human rights organizations and vehemently denied by Israel and the U.S. government. 
Amendment pushed forward from Rep. 
Thomas Massie 
The amendment to strip Israel’s foreign aid was offered by Rep. 
Thomas Massie, the libertarian-leaning Kentucky Republican who lost his own bid for reelection after Trump backed his challenger. 
During the floor debate, Massie said the $3.3 billion could be better spent at home on U.S. roads, bridges and veterans’ needs, especially as national deficits are on the rise. 
He said the American weapons were used on “oftentimes innocent civilians.” 
“I think we should stop it  we should put them on a diet,” Massie said. 
But Democratic Rep. 
Steny Hoyer of Maryland, himself a former party leader, championed longtime support of Israel and warned against withdrawing U.S. aid. 
“I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would dangerously undermine American national security,” Hoyer said. 
He said it would limit the United States’ ability to confront terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, which he said “expressly target American citizens and military personnel.” 
Lawmakers under pressure as midterms near 
The lawmakers were feeling pressure from all sides as they prepare for midterm elections this fall. 
The powerful American-Israel group AIPAC encouraged its supporters to contact members of Congress to register their opposition. 
“We must ensure his dangerous amendment is defeated,” AIPAC said in a statement ahead of the vote. 
At the same time, the progressive advocacy organization J Street gave lawmakers more leeway to express their views, as Jeffries did, even as the group opposed the amendment as poorly drafted and overly broad. 
President Jeremy Ben-Ami said in a statement that J Street recognizes “that, for many Democrats, this is one of the few opportunities to cast a recorded vote expressing opposition to the way American military assistance and American-supplied weapons have been used by the Israeli government in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and elsewhere.” 
He said that what unites the majority of Democrats “is far more significant” than this vote as they work to support “the security and rights of both Israelis and Palestinians.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.4%Lisa Mascaro: 1.1%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.5%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%Lisa Mascaro: 2.2%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic14.4%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.4%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.2%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 1.8%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 40.1%Lisa Mascaro: 13.8%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect40.1%This article: 4.2%Lisa Mascaro: 0.7%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion4.2%This article: 2.8%Lisa Mascaro: 0.3%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.3%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.2%Lisa Mascaro: 1.3%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias4.2%This article: 11.6%Lisa Mascaro: 2.3%AP News: 2.0%Pessimism Bias11.6%This article: 45.2%Lisa Mascaro: 11.8%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias45.2%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 1.8%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Lisa Mascaro: 0.8%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error4.8%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.2%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Lisa Mascaro: 3.0%AP News: 1.2%In-Group Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.8%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.6%AP News: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.7%Lisa Mascaro: 0.8%AP News: 1.3%Recency Bias8.7%This article: 2.5%Lisa Mascaro: 0.3%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Lisa Mascaro: 1.4%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem2.5%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.5%AP News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.8%Lisa Mascaro: 1.6%AP News: 3.7%Appeal to Authority11.8%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 2.0%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.9%AP News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.2%Lisa Mascaro: 4.8%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization16.2%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.5%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 22.5%Lisa Mascaro: 7.3%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion22.5%This article: 7.6%Lisa Mascaro: 0.9%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question7.6%This article: 13.3%Lisa Mascaro: 1.6%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.3%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.2%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.1%Lisa Mascaro: 0.2%AP News: 0.2%Composition/Division1.1%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.4%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.5%Lisa Mascaro: 1.3%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.5%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.2%Lisa Mascaro: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground4.2%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Mascaro: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 2.5%Lisa Mascaro: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy2.5%This article: 6.7%Lisa Mascaro: 1.0%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote6.7%This article: 2.2%Lisa Mascaro: 1.0%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection2.2%This article: 10.2%Lisa Mascaro: 7.0%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice10.2%This article: 11.8%Lisa Mascaro: 0.6%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination11.8%This article: 17.8%Lisa Mascaro: 3.1%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias17.8%This article: 5.2%Lisa Mascaro: 1.2%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.2%This article: 2.4%Lisa Mascaro: 0.3%AP News: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.4%

714 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers47%attributed speech376writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageHakeem Jeffries • 37 words • 100.0% coverageHakeem Jeffries • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Massie • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Massie • 18 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Massie • 30 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Massie • 11 words • 100.0% coverageThomas Massie • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageSteny Hoyer • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSteny Hoyer • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSteny Hoyer • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAIPAC • 17 words • 100.0% coverageAIPAC • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageJeremy Ben-Ami • 53 words • 0.0% coverageJeremy Ben-Ami • 30 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Hakeem Jeffries

100%flagged-word coverage
80 attributed words24% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Politically Left Leaning B+31.4 ptsWriter: 22.3%Hakeem Jeffries: 53.8%53.8%Unattributed Quote+46.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Hakeem Jeffries: 46.3%46.3%Indoctrination+46.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Hakeem Jeffries: 46.3%46.3%Biased Writer Voice-19.4 ptsWriter: 19.4%Hakeem Jeffries: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -9.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%Hakeem Jeffries: 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.