Amid blockade, U.S. destroyers shadow laden Iranian tankers ⁠6%

By Imogen Piper⁠0% Dan Lamothe⁠0%

4/17/2026, 4:57:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 75.3% saturation with 67 hits. Analysis detected 354 faulty-reasoning hits from 89 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠6% (20,617 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.20% of the article peer group.

Amid blockade, U.S. destroyers shadow laden Iranian tankers 
A Post analysis of satellite imagery and ship-tracking data provides a view of maritime activity inside the U.S. naval blockade. 
By Imogen Piper and Dan Lamothe 
Five empty tankers arrived at Iranian ports in the Persian Gulf in recent days and began loading millions of barrels of oil amid a U.S. naval blockade aimed at imposing severe economic pressure on Tehran, according to satellite imagery reviewed by The Washington Post and expert analysis. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 22.5%Imogen Piper: 5.6%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic22.5%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 70.8%Imogen Piper: 35.4%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect70.8%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 52.8%Imogen Piper: 17.7%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias52.8%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 75.3%Imogen Piper: 18.8%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority75.3%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 52.8%Imogen Piper: 13.2%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)52.8%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 52.8%Imogen Piper: 13.2%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote52.8%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 70.8%Imogen Piper: 17.7%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice70.8%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Imogen Piper: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

89 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker75%attributed speech22writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 47 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Washington Post

100%flagged-word coverage
67 attributed words100% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.6 ptsWriter: 72.7%The Washington Post: 70.1%70.1%Unattributed Quote+70.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%The Washington Post: 70.1%70.1%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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