WBUR⁠9%

Election expert responds to Trump's speech ⁠59%

By Here⁠38% Now Newsroom⁠38%

7/17/2026, 12:07:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 42.4% saturation with 28 hits. Analysis detected 168 faulty-reasoning hits from 66 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠59% (9,137 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.30% of the article peer group.

President Trump called last night for action to protect U.S. elections, and he continued to make unproven claims about the 2020 election, which he still denies he lost. 
Here & Now's Peter O'Dowd speaks with Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. 
This segment aired on July 17, 2026. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 42.4%Here: 1.6%Cognoscenti: 2.4%Confirmation Bias42.4%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 7.9%Cognoscenti: 2.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.7%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 42.4%Here: 29.1%Cognoscenti: 3.9%Framing Effect42.4%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 42.4%Here: 20.5%Cognoscenti: 5.0%Negativity Bias42.4%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 14.0%Cognoscenti: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.5%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 5.6%Cognoscenti: 2.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 3.4%Cognoscenti: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.7%Cognoscenti: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 3.4%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 5.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 3.4%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 42.4%Here: 3.1%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Burden of Proof42.4%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 2.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.7%Cognoscenti: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 42.4%Here: 23.6%Cognoscenti: 3.0%Biased Writer Voice42.4%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 42.4%Here: 4.8%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias42.4%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

66 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.