Raw Story⁠93%

CBS News effort called a 'blatant sham' by expert: 'Yet another embarrassment' ⁠91%

By Travis Gettys⁠95%

6/30/2026, 11:54:40 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 27.2% saturation with 131 hits. Analysis detected 1,327 faulty-reasoning hits from 482 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (1,903 of 20,444 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.70% of the article peer group.

A veteran journalist and former New York Times public editor called out CBS News' gesture toward public accountability as a "blatant sham." 
The network's Donald Trump-aligned new owners tapped Kenneth R. 
Weinstein, a former chief executive of the right-leaning Hudson Institute, to review complaints about its coverage as ombudsman, but media expert Margaret Sullivan wrote on her "American Crisis" Substack that he had failed to be independent or transparent as promised. 
"From the get-go, there was no reason to think this would be a real thing — a person whose first responsibility was to the CBS audience and whose first interest was fairness in the public interest," Sullivan wrote. 
"First off, Weinstein had no background in supervising news coverage. 
He was a denizen of the right-leaning think tank, the Hudson Institute, a vocal champion of Israel, a critic of the Biden administration and a big donor to Republican and pro-Trump political groups." 
"I’m not sure how this amounts to independence," she added. 
Weinstein had been "notably unresponsive" to viewer complaints about CBS News, which has seen "60 Minutes" stars like Anderson Cooper and Scott Pelley flee and ratings collapse, and Sullivan said the network's ombudsman had done remarkably little to respond to the tumult. 
"Despite the lip service to 'transparency,' his role was never meant to face outwards, as is the norm with news ombudsmen; rather, if he saw a problem, he’d report it to his corporate bosses," Sullivan wrote. 
The Times recently reported on Weinstein's public silence, noting that he hadn't issued any statements about the CBS News controversies or issued any guidance to staffers, and employees say he's told them he is scheduled to work only one day a month. 
"It’s absurd," Sullivan wrote. 
"I know something about this because I was the fifth 'public editor' at the New York Times, a role dedicated to making sure the news organization was fair and was serving the public interest," she added. 
"The way the Times’s position was structured created actual, not fake, transparency." 
Sullivan compared her workload – several blog posts each week and a more formal column every other week, in addition to fielding hundred of emails and calls – to Weinstein's duties, and she suggested five topics the CBS News ombudsman could look into during his seemingly singular workday. 
For example, Sullivan urged him to investigate editor-in-chief Bari Weiss delaying Alfonsi's El Salvador prison report amid a pending merger; mass departures of top talent like Cooper, Pelley and "60 Minutes" executive producer Tanya Simon; CBS Evening News' ratings collapse under Dokoupil; CBS Mornings' steep audience drop post-Pelley; and whether Weiss's pro-Israel views compromise Gaza coverage independence. 
"I could go on, but you get the picture," Sullivan said. 
"So does the public, if comments on the Times article are any indication. 
It’s (yet another) embarrassment to CBS News." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.3%Travis Gettys: 12.1%Rawstory: 7.6%Confirmation Bias18.3%This article: 7.9%Travis Gettys: 3.2%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias7.9%This article: 23.2%Travis Gettys: 6.2%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic23.2%This article: 10.0%Travis Gettys: 1.2%Rawstory: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic10.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 5.0%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 5.4%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.3%Travis Gettys: 10.6%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect19.3%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Travis Gettys: 4.2%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias10.0%This article: 27.2%Travis Gettys: 19.4%Rawstory: 21.8%Negativity Bias27.2%This article: 7.5%Travis Gettys: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 2.4%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Travis Gettys: 0.8%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias1.9%This article: 6.8%Travis Gettys: 3.8%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.7%Travis Gettys: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias8.7%This article: 10.0%Travis Gettys: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect10.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Travis Gettys: 10.2%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem6.8%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.5%Travis Gettys: 10.0%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority24.5%This article: 2.5%Travis Gettys: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 3.1%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.6%Travis Gettys: 10.4%Rawstory: 11.9%Hasty Generalization16.6%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.7%Travis Gettys: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon2.7%This article: 9.3%Travis Gettys: 7.0%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion9.3%This article: 12.4%Travis Gettys: 4.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question12.4%This article: 8.7%Travis Gettys: 5.3%Rawstory: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.7%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.1%Travis Gettys: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.5%Burden of Proof2.1%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 10.0%Travis Gettys: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division10.0%This article: 12.2%Travis Gettys: 3.1%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal12.2%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.5%Travis Gettys: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.5%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 6.8%Travis Gettys: 2.8%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy6.8%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 2.3%Rawstory: 5.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.5%Travis Gettys: 4.0%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection2.5%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 8.2%Rawstory: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 5.0%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.2%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Travis Gettys: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

482 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers94%attributed speech28writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 40 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 38 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 33 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 42 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 36 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 42 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 36 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 48 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 57 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMargaret Sullivan • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Margaret Sullivan

100%flagged-word coverage
412 attributed words91% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Quote-first Misdirection-42.9 ptsWriter: 42.9%Margaret Sullivan: 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.