BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 43.6% saturation with 190 hits. Analysis detected 1,145 faulty-reasoning hits from 436 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.6% and a BS Rank of 79% (5,523 of 25,300 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.20% of the article peer group.

Israel is spending wads of cash on public diplomacy in a desperate attempt to reverse waning American support for the country after it stands accused of genocide in Gaza and pushing the U.S. into the Iran war. 
Since Oct. 
7, Israel has spent over a billion dollars on global “hasbara”  television appearances, social media campaigns, chat-bot training, and other efforts to influence how people think about Israel. 
And this “public diplomacy” budget more than quadrupled in the last year alone. 
To understand these efforts to win back American hearts and minds, we welcomed Quincy Institute Research Fellow Nick Cleveland-Stout to the latest episode of Always at War. 
Nick’s latest research is the most-definitive accounting yet of Israel's new approach to winning over American’s hearts and minds. 
Nick’s findings surface a surprising development in Israel’s influence efforts: while the country used to rely almost exclusively on wealthy, sympathetic advocates tilting the policy process toward Israel’s interest via American lobbying groups like AIPAC, Israel has recently been forced to hire U.S. contractors and firms that have to register as foreign agents under FARA. 
While the transition signals Israel's increasing desperation, it also allows us to see who Israel is hiring and for what. 
Take for example, Trump's former campaign manager Brad Parscale, who is currently the proud holder of three of Israel’s largest contracts. 
His main gig: running a mass texting campaign on behalf of Israel while posing as mysterious “peace” groups like “Allies for Peace.” 
Or, to take another example, the public diplomacy group Targeted Communications Global, which has spent nearly $10 million to run ads on places like X, the Daily Caller, and Breitbart. 
It turns out, Israel is more worried about maintaining their right-leaning supporters. 
But perhaps the most shocking revelation is just how much time and money Tel Aviv is spending on “training” our chat bots  think Claude, ChatGPT, or Grok. 
The Israeli government is actually paying for “LLM poisoning”  developing pro-Israel websites that feed information to these chatbots whenever they’re asked about Israel. 
The apparent goal is that, when you ask about a straightforward incident  like Hind Rajab’s murder by the IDF  the chatbot will feed you a “he-said, she-said” story that features Israel’s justifications for shooting a five-year old, not a straight, factual accounting of events 
But the question remains, will the tens of millions Israel is spending on public diplomacy actually work? 
Will a sophisticated and expensive influence campaign really change Americans’ minds about Washington’s perpetual blank checks for Israel? 
Tune in and find out. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.1%Courtney Rawlings: 8.7%Responsible Statecraft: 6.4%Confirmation Bias15.1%This article: 7.6%Courtney Rawlings: 1.2%Responsible Statecraft: 0.5%Anchoring Bias7.6%This article: 17.9%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 1.5%Availability Heuristic17.9%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias4.4%This article: 1.8%Courtney Rawlings: 45.0%Responsible Statecraft: 7.6%Framing Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 2.9%Pessimism Bias12.6%This article: 43.6%Courtney Rawlings: 26.3%Responsible Statecraft: 8.5%Negativity Bias43.6%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 15.4%Courtney Rawlings: 0.9%Responsible Statecraft: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error15.4%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.4%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 1.6%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Courtney Rawlings: 1.0%Responsible Statecraft: 1.1%Recency Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Courtney Rawlings: 1.6%Responsible Statecraft: 1.1%Ad Hominem5.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.4%Courtney Rawlings: 2.9%Responsible Statecraft: 2.9%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 4.1%Courtney Rawlings: 3.5%Responsible Statecraft: 2.2%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 24.1%Courtney Rawlings: 10.2%Responsible Statecraft: 5.7%Hasty Generalization24.1%This article: 12.6%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Red Herring12.6%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 30.3%Courtney Rawlings: 12.0%Responsible Statecraft: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion30.3%This article: 2.8%Courtney Rawlings: 5.2%Responsible Statecraft: 1.1%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 3.0%Courtney Rawlings: 3.5%Responsible Statecraft: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.6%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.9%Anecdotal10.6%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.5%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.5%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.6%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Special Pleading4.6%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 34.4%Courtney Rawlings: 34.1%Responsible Statecraft: 11.3%Biased Writer Voice34.4%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 14.6%Responsible Statecraft: 3.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Rawlings: 2.4%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

436 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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