Raw Story⁠93%

Mitch McConnell's wife did something 'bizarre' after he was hospitalized: report ⁠25%

By Kathleen Culliton⁠79%

7/4/2026, 5:35:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 19.6% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 357 faulty-reasoning hits from 230 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠25% (16,414 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.00% of the article peer group.

The wife of Sen. 
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did something "bizarre" three days after he was hospitalized for a possible heart attack, according to a new report. 
Elaine Chao, Transportation secretary during Trump's first administration and McConnell's wife since 1993, left the country, the Daily Beast reported Saturday. 
Chao flew to Beijing to discuss China-U.S. relations with Chinese Vice President Han Zheng on June 17, according to the Daily Beast and Chinese media. 
This was three days after McConnell, 84, was reportedly found "unconscious" and rushed from his home in Washington to the hospital, reports show. 
A dispatcher sent an Advanced Life Support ambulance to McConnell's home on June 14, according to audio released by journalist Desiree Townsend. 
A McConnell spokesperson confirmed that day that the former Senate GOP leader had been hospitalized. 
A June 22 statement said McConnell was "working closely with staff" on Senate and Kentucky business. 
A McConnell team member said on June 30 that he was still recovering . 
This was McConnell's second hospitalization since February, when he received treatment for flu-like symptoms, according to reports. 
McConnell, who has announced his retirement at the end of the year, has faced repeated health scares. 
The Kentucky Republican was hospitalized with a concussion after falling in 2023. 
The childhood polio survivor also froze publicly twice that same year. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 7.4%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Kathleen Culliton: 5.5%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic4.8%This article: 7.4%Kathleen Culliton: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.4%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.3%Kathleen Culliton: 13.5%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect14.3%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.0%Kathleen Culliton: 21.4%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias17.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.7%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.4%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias17.4%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 5.9%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.1%Kathleen Culliton: 4.0%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority16.1%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.2%Kathleen Culliton: 12.4%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization12.2%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.3%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 8.4%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.0%Kathleen Culliton: 3.7%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.4%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 4.4%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.3%Kathleen Culliton: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.3%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.6%Kathleen Culliton: 4.9%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote19.6%This article: 4.8%Kathleen Culliton: 5.8%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection4.8%This article: 12.2%Kathleen Culliton: 16.5%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice12.2%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.9%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 5.6%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

230 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers30%attributed speech162writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageDaily Beast • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDaily Beast • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageDesiree Townsend • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Daily Beast

0%flagged-word coverage
46 attributed words68% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Unattributed Quote-27.8 ptsWriter: 27.8%Daily Beast: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-17.3 ptsWriter: 17.3%Daily Beast: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%Daily Beast: 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.