No Shooting at White House Press Dinner, But Trump Bombed 89%

By Klaus Marre88%

7/25/2026, 10:46:31 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Ad Hominem, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 57.3% saturation with 288 hits. Analysis detected 1,345 faulty-reasoning hits from 503 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.3% and a BS Rank of 89% (2,580 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.20% of the article peer group.

Three months ago, a White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner that shouldn’t have been held in the first place was cut short by a gunman. 
On Friday evening, the do-over of “nerd prom,” as the event is also known, featured no such drama. 
In fact, there was none at all, just an absolute bore of a speech from Donald Trump. 
Instead of delivering the kind of self-deprecating humor that has allowed normal presidents to show off their comedic chops in the past, Trump instead spent most of his remarks on airing grievances. 
While he started off normal enough, the speech quickly went off the rails. 
Trump talked a lot about his ballroom, the chandeliers in the Waldorf Astoria Hotel where the event was held this time, the UFC fight he staged in front of the White House earlier this month, and the 450,000 people that he pretended showed up for this Independence Day speech. 
And then the insults started. 
Here is a quick summary of them: 
Former New Jersey Gov. 
Chris Christie is fat, as are Rep. 
Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and the “governor of Chicago” (which isn’t a real thing). 
Rep. 
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is dumb, but not as dumb as Don Lemon. 
Bette Midler and Jane Fonda are uglier than those beat-up UFC fighters, and Bruce Springsteen “looks like hell.” 
Perhaps the funniest part of the whole speech was when Trump admitted that he watched the clip of the WHCA in which former President Barack Obama roasted him “thousands of times.” 
That would certainly make sense and explain part of the seething rage he continues to direct at his predecessor. 
But back to his “jokes.” 
Late night talk show hosts Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and Jimmy Fallon are terrible and have no talent. 
Sen. 
Adam Schiff (D-CA) has a watermelon-sized head, and Trump hates him. 
Rosie O’Donnell is a “sick older woman.” 
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins should smile more, and all of the media is fake news. 
Oh, and Gov. 
Gavin Newsom (D), former Vice President Kamala Harris, and Rep. 
Ilhan Omar (D-MN) are also low-IQ. 
Great stuff, Mr. 
President! 
Sadly, that wasn’t even the end of it; we are just tired of listing all the people Trump insulted, so you can imagine how the people who sat through this snoozefest felt. 
By the way, Fox News’ take on all this was that the president “struck a more conciliatory tone.” 
Now *that’s* funny. 
Trump then followed-up all of that name-calling with some of his favorite lies about how he won the 2020 election and that the US has entered a “golden age.” 
Then, mercifully, he wrapped things up after more than an hour. 
At that point, we are quite sure that many attendees wished that the redo of the WHCA dinner had also been cut short. 
But don’t feel bad for them. 
After all, they should have boycotted the event instead of honoring a man who is an enemy of a free press. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.5%Klaus Marre: 4.8%WhoWhatWhy: 5.0%Confirmation Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.6%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Klaus Marre: 4.3%WhoWhatWhy: 3.9%Availability Heuristic17.5%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.4%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Klaus Marre: 10.7%WhoWhatWhy: 4.5%Framing Effect11.9%This article: 4.2%Klaus Marre: 0.6%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Loss Aversion4.2%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 3.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Klaus Marre: 3.5%WhoWhatWhy: 2.9%Pessimism Bias4.8%This article: 57.3%Klaus Marre: 30.5%WhoWhatWhy: 14.3%Negativity Bias57.3%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 2.1%WhoWhatWhy: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Klaus Marre: 3.3%WhoWhatWhy: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error3.8%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 1.3%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.4%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 2.9%WhoWhatWhy: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.6%WhoWhatWhy: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 21.1%Klaus Marre: 15.5%WhoWhatWhy: 3.8%Ad Hominem21.1%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.6%WhoWhatWhy: 3.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 10.5%Klaus Marre: 2.0%WhoWhatWhy: 1.9%False Dilemma10.5%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 4.4%WhoWhatWhy: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.1%Klaus Marre: 6.8%WhoWhatWhy: 5.7%Hasty Generalization16.1%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.8%Klaus Marre: 1.3%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%Bandwagon2.8%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 6.0%WhoWhatWhy: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 9.9%Klaus Marre: 3.1%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Begging the Question9.9%This article: 3.8%Klaus Marre: 1.9%WhoWhatWhy: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.8%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.7%Klaus Marre: 2.0%WhoWhatWhy: 3.2%Anecdotal10.7%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.4%Klaus Marre: 1.2%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.4%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 21.1%Klaus Marre: 6.3%WhoWhatWhy: 2.0%Unattributed Quote21.1%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.5%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 35.2%Klaus Marre: 33.4%WhoWhatWhy: 9.1%Biased Writer Voice35.2%This article: 8.7%Klaus Marre: 2.3%WhoWhatWhy: 1.6%Indoctrination8.7%This article: 7.8%Klaus Marre: 18.5%WhoWhatWhy: 3.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.8%This article: 6.4%Klaus Marre: 0.9%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.4%WhoWhatWhy: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

503 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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