WBUR⁠5%

U.S.-Iran war escalates ⁠58%

By Here⁠37% Now Newsroom⁠37%

7/20/2026, 12:12:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 61.3% saturation with 38 hits. Analysis detected 91 faulty-reasoning hits from 62 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (8,715 of 20,380 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.20% of the article peer group.

U.S. 
Central Command says the U.S. military launched new strikes against Iran overnight. 
Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain activated defenses against Iranian drones and missiles. 
Three American service members have been killed since Friday. 
Host Scott Tong gets the latest from Here & Now security analyst Jim Walsh, senior research associate with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Security Studies program. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Here: 1.6%Cognoscenti: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 7.9%Cognoscenti: 2.2%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: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Here: 29.1%Cognoscenti: 3.8%Framing Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%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: 0.2%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: 0.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%Here: 20.5%Cognoscenti: 4.8%Negativity Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%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: 0.6%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: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 46.8%Here: 14.0%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Recency Bias46.8%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.5%Cognoscenti: 0.3%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: 61.3%Here: 5.6%Cognoscenti: 2.6%Appeal to Authority61.3%This article: 0.0%Here: 3.4%Cognoscenti: 1.6%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: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 3.4%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 4.9%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: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 3.1%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%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: 2.4%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: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.4%Here: 0.7%Cognoscenti: 0.9%Unattributed Quote19.4%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 23.6%Cognoscenti: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 4.8%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%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%

62 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers61%attributed speech24writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageCentral Command • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageScott Tong • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Scott Tong

100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words68% of attributed speech50% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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