Truthout74%

Trump Dismisses Responsibility for Minab Massacre, Saying Photo Evidence Is “AI” 60%

By Sharon Zhang80%

7/15/2026, 9:14:15 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 46.6% saturation with 218 hits. Analysis detected 954 faulty-reasoning hits from 468 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.6% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,226 of 20,518 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.90% of the article peer group.

As calls for transparency grow, President Donald Trump has waved away the idea of accepting U.S. responsibility for the massacre of schoolchildren in Minab, Iran, on the first day of the U.S. and Israel’s war  and has suggested, heinously, that photo evidence of U.S. munitions used on the school “are AI.” 
Asked about a letter from Democrats this week calling for the release of the U.S. military’s investigation into the bombing of the elementary girls’ school that killed 168 people, including over 100 children, Trump refused to say if that investigation would ever be released to the public. 
“You know, I don’t think anyone’s ever going to be able to say what happened there,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday. 
This is despite widespread acknowledgement that the U.S. was behind the strike, including within internal U.S. military investigations, as well as video and photo evidence showing U.S. 
Tomahawk missiles and missile fragments being used on the site of the elementary girls’ school on February 28, the day of the U.S. and Israel’s initial strikes on Iran. 
Later, Trump was asked about the photo evidence, as well as recent reporting finding that the U.S. bombed the school as a result of a collapse in targeting protocols, with commanders bypassing warnings about outdated information in the rush to strike as many targets as possible on the first day of the war. 
“Is it possible that old intelligence, or a mistake during a very active time in the war led to this event?” 
asked Fox correspondent Trey Yingst. 
“It is, but it’s also possible that those images are AI-generated,” responded the president. 
“I know we’re waiting for a conclusive report  I don’t think there can be a conclusive report,” Trump added. 
The Minab massacre represents one of the worst single civilian massacres in U.S. history, if the U.S. is responsible. 
The administration has been facing growing scrutiny over its seeming refusal to release the results of the investigation into the strike thus far. 
This is despite U.S. 
Central Command head Brad Cooper saying in May that the investigation was nearing its conclusion, and reports that the report was actually finished in April and is still in the hands of senior Pentagon officials. 
On Monday, over two dozen Democrats sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Cooper calling for the release of the report. 
“More than four months after the strike, and after the reported submission of the investigation in April, Congress and the American people still have not received the Department’s investigation and findings,” the lawmakers wrote. 
“There is no justification for withholding an unclassified accounting of what happened, what went wrong, and what the Department is doing to prevent recurrence.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.8%Sharon Zhang: 7.7%Truthout: 5.8%Confirmation Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Sharon Zhang: 5.3%Truthout: 3.3%Availability Heuristic18.8%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.9%Truthout: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Sharon Zhang: 11.8%Truthout: 10.0%Framing Effect13.5%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.5%Truthout: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.0%Truthout: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Sharon Zhang: 2.8%Truthout: 2.3%Pessimism Bias4.3%This article: 46.6%Sharon Zhang: 19.1%Truthout: 12.1%Negativity Bias46.6%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.4%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.1%Truthout: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.7%Truthout: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.5%Truthout: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.8%Truthout: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.3%Truthout: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.5%Truthout: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.0%Truthout: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.3%Truthout: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.6%Sharon Zhang: 5.6%Truthout: 3.7%Appeal to Authority24.6%This article: 3.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.8%Truthout: 1.9%False Dilemma3.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.4%Truthout: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 10.1%Truthout: 7.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.5%Truthout: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.1%Sharon Zhang: 10.9%Truthout: 8.6%Appeal to Emotion11.1%This article: 4.1%Sharon Zhang: 2.1%Truthout: 1.7%Begging the Question4.1%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 3.4%Truthout: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.3%Sharon Zhang: 2.4%Truthout: 0.8%Burden of Proof7.3%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.5%Sharon Zhang: 4.0%Truthout: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.5%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.3%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 0.1%Middle Ground4.3%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 5.1%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading5.1%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.6%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.3%Sharon Zhang: 2.6%Truthout: 1.5%Unattributed Quote17.3%This article: 2.4%Sharon Zhang: 2.4%Truthout: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 28.4%Sharon Zhang: 14.2%Truthout: 9.4%Biased Writer Voice28.4%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.3%Truthout: 2.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 7.8%Truthout: 7.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.9%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 3.5%Truthout: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

468 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers17%attributed speech387writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 0.0% coverageTrey Yingst • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 14 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

57%flagged-word coverage
60 attributed words74% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.4 ptsWriter: 34.4%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-20.9 ptsWriter: 20.9%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Trump: 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.