BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Begging the Question, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 45.1% saturation with 276 hits. Analysis detected 1,217 faulty-reasoning hits from 612 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.4% and a BS Rank of 84% (3,465 of 20,518 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.10% of the article peer group.

US Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on Friday threatened state election officials with prison time if they do not comply with the Trump administration’s “mandatory” changes to how they run their elections. 
During a press conference, Mullin said that the Trump administration was making so-called “security enhancements” to US elections “mandatory,” adding that any uncooperative states will be penalized. 
“If these states want a grant and they want to be reimbursed to run federal elections, they’re going to have to implement security issues,” Mullin said. 
“We’re saying that your [voting] machines have to be secured and that your voter registration list needs to be scrubbed.” 
Later in the press conference, Mullin elaborated further on penalties states could face if they didn’t “scrub” their voter rolls to the administration’s specifications. 
“The states that choose… not to participate in securing the elections, we will make sure we make those states a priority to look into who voted in their states, and hold then the election officials accountable,” he said. 
“If the election officials, once we gave them the information they need to secure their elections, and they chose not to, then those individuals can also be held accountable.” 
Mullin added that this accountability can come “by fines, by penalties, and even, depending on how far it goes, prison time.” 
Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution explicitly gives states the power to run their own elections, while granting the US Congress the authority to implement federal regulations if needed. 
The executive branch of the federal government is given no role in the administration and regulation of elections. 
Democratic California Gov. 
Gavin Newsom reacted to Mullin’s threats of jail time for election officials with defiance. 
“California has free, fair, and secure elections and we will fight for them,” Newsom wrote in a social media post. 
“Try us.” 
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) similarly vowed to fight the administration’s efforts to meddle in the elections. 
“They are losing, and they know it,” Schumer wrote. 
“Election officials will not be intimidated. 
Senate Democrats will make sure resources are in place to fight back against any illegal activity by the Trump administration.” 
Sen. 
Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) warned that Mullin’s Friday statements appear to be an escalation in the administration’s tactics. 
“First, they sent the FBI to seize ballots in Georgia,” he wrote. 
“Then, they tried to get data on election workers in Fulton County. 
Now, they’re threatening to imprison election officials. 
This is escalating quickly. 
Every single American should be alarmed.” 
Government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington also indicated it would file legal challenges to the administration’s efforts to take over the elections process. 
“The Constitution gives states, not the federal government, the power to administer elections,” the group wrote. 
“That’s for a good reason, but the Trump admin keeps trying and failing to grab power anyway. 
We’re fighting back in court.” 
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, expressed skepticism that the Trump White House’s election meddling would be successful. 
The Department of Homeland Security “has literally zero power to do this,” Reichlin-Melnick wrote. 
“The Trump admin has lost every single lawsuit on their efforts to get state voter data or change voter requirements. 
The power to administer elections is given to the states.” 
Historian Patrick Wyman similarly predicted the administration’s efforts would end in failure. 
“They’re going to threaten this stuff, they’ll ham-fistedly screw up the implementation, commit seven atrocities, and still lose every election that matters in November,” Wyman wrote. 
“We’re now nearing the ‘fuck you, do it, see what happens’ stage of this confrontation.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.2%Brad Reed: 6.2%Truthout: 5.8%Confirmation Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Brad Reed: 3.8%Truthout: 3.3%Availability Heuristic3.9%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.3%Brad Reed: 1.2%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias3.3%This article: 5.2%Brad Reed: 5.9%Truthout: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias5.2%This article: 22.9%Brad Reed: 24.8%Truthout: 10.0%Framing Effect22.9%This article: 0.8%Brad Reed: 0.2%Truthout: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.8%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.6%Truthout: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.4%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Brad Reed: 3.3%Truthout: 2.3%Pessimism Bias5.7%This article: 45.1%Brad Reed: 14.3%Truthout: 12.1%Negativity Bias45.1%This article: 3.3%Brad Reed: 1.1%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias3.3%This article: 8.0%Brad Reed: 1.9%Truthout: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error8.0%This article: 2.3%Brad Reed: 0.2%Truthout: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.3%This article: 2.9%Brad Reed: 4.1%Truthout: 1.9%In-Group Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.7%Truthout: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Brad Reed: 1.4%Truthout: 1.1%Recency Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.2%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 4.1%Truthout: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 1.7%Truthout: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.4%Brad Reed: 9.6%Truthout: 3.7%Appeal to Authority11.4%This article: 2.9%Brad Reed: 2.0%Truthout: 1.9%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 4.1%Brad Reed: 3.1%Truthout: 1.6%Slippery Slope4.1%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.4%Truthout: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.7%Brad Reed: 13.2%Truthout: 7.7%Hasty Generalization4.7%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.0%Brad Reed: 1.3%Truthout: 0.6%Bandwagon1.0%This article: 13.7%Brad Reed: 15.1%Truthout: 8.6%Appeal to Emotion13.7%This article: 16.7%Brad Reed: 3.5%Truthout: 1.7%Begging the Question16.7%This article: 2.0%Brad Reed: 0.6%Truthout: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.7%Truthout: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.6%Truthout: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.2%Brad Reed: 1.6%Truthout: 2.8%Anecdotal8.2%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.7%Brad Reed: 2.6%Truthout: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.7%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.8%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 3.7%Truthout: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.9%Brad Reed: 3.8%Truthout: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection6.9%This article: 7.0%Brad Reed: 11.1%Truthout: 9.4%Biased Writer Voice7.0%This article: 1.0%Brad Reed: 2.1%Truthout: 2.9%Indoctrination1.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 15.3%Truthout: 7.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 2.4%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 2.8%Truthout: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

612 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers61%attributed speech239writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 26 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 38 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 29 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 20 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 2 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Schumer • 18 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Schumer • 9 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Schumer • 6 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Schumer • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageRaphael Warnock • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRaphael Warnock • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRaphael Warnock • 7 words • 0.0% coverageRaphael Warnock • 4 words • 0.0% coverageRaphael Warnock • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington • 17 words • 0.0% coverageCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Reichlin-Melnick • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Reichlin-Melnick • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Reichlin-Melnick • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Wyman • 26 words • 100.0% coveragePatrick Wyman • 15 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Patrick Wyman

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words11% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice+58.4 ptsWriter: 5.0%Patrick Wyman: 63.4%63.4%Quote-first Misdirection+25.3 ptsWriter: 11.3%Patrick Wyman: 36.6%36.6%

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.