The Todd Blanche Confirmation Will Be About Everything and Nothing ⁠93%

By John McCormack⁠99%

7/14/2026, 6:43:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 483 faulty-reasoning hits from 81 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 88.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠93% (1,533 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 93.00% of the article peer group.

The Todd Blanche confirmation fight, which will kick into high gear when the Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings on Wednesday and Thursday, is about everything and nothing. 
It’s about everything in the sense that the hearing to confirm Blanche as attorney general isn’t simply about Blanche—it’s about every instance in which the Department of Justice flouted the rule of law in the first 18 months of President Donald Trump’s second term. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 54.3%John McCormack: 40.7%The Dispatch: 4.0%Confirmation Bias54.3%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%John McCormack: 75.0%The Dispatch: 4.8%Framing Effect100.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 2.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%John McCormack: 63.6%The Dispatch: 5.3%Negativity Bias100.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 33.3%John McCormack: 8.3%The Dispatch: 1.2%Recency Bias33.3%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 11.4%The Dispatch: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 54.3%John McCormack: 65.7%The Dispatch: 6.1%Hasty Generalization54.3%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 13.6%The Dispatch: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 54.3%John McCormack: 13.6%The Dispatch: 0.5%Burden of Proof54.3%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 45.7%John McCormack: 22.8%The Dispatch: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)45.7%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 54.3%John McCormack: 13.6%The Dispatch: 1.3%Unattributed Quote54.3%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 100.0%John McCormack: 63.6%The Dispatch: 7.1%Biased Writer Voice100.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 27.2%The Dispatch: 1.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John McCormack: 0.0%The Dispatch: 5.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

81 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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