MS NOW⁠95%

FBI reached out to Capitol police to arrange interviews with Dems in video to troops⁠100%

By Zahara Hill⁠0%

11/25/2025, 5:02:03 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 54.2% saturation with 32 hits. Analysis detected 182 faulty-reasoning hits from 59 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠100% (22 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 99.90% of the article peer group.

MS NOW has learned that the FBI has reached out via Capitol police to arrange interviews with the six Democratic lawmakers who posted a video urging service members to refuse illegal orders. 
MS NOW Justice and Intelligence Reporter Ken Dilanian has more details. 
Southwestern Law School Law Professor and former JAG officer Rachel VanLandingham joins Chris Jansing to discuss. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 18.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 5.9%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 1.3%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 54.2%Zahara Hill: 84.8%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect54.2%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 45.8%Zahara Hill: 11.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect45.8%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 54.2%Zahara Hill: 47.1%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias54.2%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 54.2%Zahara Hill: 70.3%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias54.2%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 30.4%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 8.4%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 10.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 17.4%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 4.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 45.8%Zahara Hill: 48.7%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority45.8%This article: 54.2%Zahara Hill: 44.7%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion54.2%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Zahara Hill: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%

59 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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