CBC Arts⁠49%

How the Knicks’ championship run became political ⁠53%

By Amelia Eqbal⁠0%

6/18/2026, 8:05:06 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Anecdotal, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.4% saturation with 220 hits. Analysis detected 1,435 faulty-reasoning hits from 680 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠53% (10,350 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.70% of the article peer group.

After the New York Knicks won their first NBA championship in 53 years, the city is celebrating with a massive parade. 
Amidst all the joy, however, remain questions of how the win, and the road to it, has been politicized. 
Notably, U.S. 
President Donald Trump became the first sitting president to ever attend an NBA finals game during the Knicks’ latest historic run — a decision that received a lot of boo’s from the crowd inside the arena. 
Today on Commotion, sports writer Morgan Campbell and New York culture critic Jay Smooth join host Elamin Abdelmahmoud to talk about what this moment means for the fans, and how it’s landing in this larger political climate. 
We've included some highlights below, edited for length and clarity. 
For the full discussion, listen and follow Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud on your favourite podcast player. 
WATCH | Today's episode on YouTube: 
Elamin: Donald Trump becomes the first sitting president to ever attend an NBA finals game. 
Trump, also a New Yorker, and at this point also one of the most recognizable New Yorkers in popular culture, I feel …. 
Morgan, what did you make of Trump's decision to attend the NBA finals and become the first president to do so?... 
Morgan: There's two things coming together, Elamin. 
One is that — and this is not my opinion, these are points of fact, we can go look this up — all these opinion polls show us that Trump's popularity is tanking. 
It's in steep decline. 
So if you are somebody whose popularity is in steep decline, you understand, or the people around you understand, that the default attitude towards you is disdain in the public — especially in New York, where people don't vote for you. 
One of the things you can do is append yourself to something that's popular, like the New York Knicks. 
Go to a home game. 
And one of the things you can do, if the people around you think that folks are likely to boo you … is to put you on the screen during the national anthem because real patriots don't boo during the national anthem, right?... 
And then the other thing is, luckily for Trump, the man is shameless. 
And so, most of us would go someplace and get booed, and feel bad about it. 
He is impervious to this because he does not feel shame, and he operates in a way that you would operate if you did not feel shame. 
And so where most of us would really start re-evaluating what we're doing after getting booed like that, I am not sure Trump even noticed that he was getting booed…. 
Elamin: Jay, it is worth noting that … James Dolan is the Knicks’ owner. 
He's confirmed that the team is going to accept the invitation to visit Donald Trump at the White House. 
What do you make of that decision?... 
Jay: I think we should be clear that we saw James Dolan use the word “we” when speaking of accepting this invitation, but we have not heard from any of the New York Knicks players about this, and I wouldn't be surprised if James Dolan took it upon himself to say this without having run it by the players yet, and is hoping to put them in a position where they feel compelled to go along with this because the owner said they were going to do it. 
So I would hold out and see whether there will be some sort of scheduling conflicts that emerge between now and whenever that visit is actually going to happen. 
And if it does come to pass, I feel inclined to recognize it's probably under duress. 
I don't want to see it, but I'm going to try not to hold it against the players too much if it does happen. 
You can listen to the full discussion from today's show on CBC Listen or on our podcast, Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud, available wherever you get your podcasts. 
Panel produced by Ty Callender. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.9%Amelia Eqbal: 2.7%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.3%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 3.4%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.0%Amelia Eqbal: 2.2%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.7%CBC: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Amelia Eqbal: 1.9%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias4.9%This article: 9.3%Amelia Eqbal: 3.8%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect9.3%This article: 3.5%Amelia Eqbal: 0.1%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.5%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.2%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.2%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.3%Amelia Eqbal: 2.4%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias4.3%This article: 5.0%Amelia Eqbal: 1.3%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias5.0%This article: 32.4%Amelia Eqbal: 4.2%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias32.4%This article: 9.9%Amelia Eqbal: 0.9%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias9.9%This article: 15.7%Amelia Eqbal: 4.9%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error15.7%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Amelia Eqbal: 3.5%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.5%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Amelia Eqbal: 4.4%CBC: 3.6%Halo Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.2%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.5%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.4%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Amelia Eqbal: 0.9%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem1.9%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.5%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.6%Amelia Eqbal: 2.4%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority7.6%This article: 6.0%Amelia Eqbal: 1.5%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma6.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.3%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.3%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.0%Amelia Eqbal: 8.0%CBC: 4.8%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.3%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 1.3%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.3%Amelia Eqbal: 3.1%CBC: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion6.3%This article: 2.8%Amelia Eqbal: 1.2%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 4.0%Amelia Eqbal: 3.9%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.1%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.2%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.4%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.4%Amelia Eqbal: 3.5%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal17.4%This article: 6.3%Amelia Eqbal: 0.6%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman6.3%This article: 19.6%Amelia Eqbal: 1.7%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.6%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.1%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.0%Amelia Eqbal: 2.2%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote5.0%This article: 1.5%Amelia Eqbal: 0.4%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection1.5%This article: 8.2%Amelia Eqbal: 2.9%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice8.2%This article: 9.7%Amelia Eqbal: 3.1%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination9.7%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.4%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amelia Eqbal: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Amelia Eqbal: 5.7%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.2%

680 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers73%attributed speech186writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 15 words • 100.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 23 words • 100.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan Campbell • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan Campbell • 33 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan Campbell • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan Campbell • 41 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan Campbell • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan Campbell • 5 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan Campbell • 43 words • 100.0% coverageMorgan Campbell • 13 words • 100.0% coverageMorgan Campbell • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan Campbell • 27 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan Campbell • 30 words • 0.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 14 words • 0.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 19 words • 100.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 88 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jay Smooth

100%flagged-word coverage
157 attributed words32% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -26.3 ptsWriter: 26.3%Jay Smooth: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.1 ptsWriter: 23.1%Jay Smooth: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.4 ptsWriter: 5.4%Jay Smooth: 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.