Raw Story93%

Critics ridicule Trump over new Kennedy Center photo: 'Fragile as a china eggshell' 74%

By Robert Davis75%

6/28/2026, 5:07:05 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 51.9% saturation with 112 hits. Analysis detected 502 faulty-reasoning hits from 216 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.9% and a BS Rank of 74% (5,790 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.50% of the article peer group.

Political commentators took shots at President Donald Trump on Sunday after CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins posted a new photo of the Kennedy Center's newest renovation project. 
In May, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to remove Trump's name from the Kennedy Center facade after the administration abruptly put it up without going through the proper approval process. 
The move was part of Trump's effort to rebrand the center as the Trump Kennedy Center, which prompted bipartisan scrutiny of the administration. 
In response to the judge's order, the Trump administration put up scaffolding and tarps, obscuring the Kennedy Center's signage. 
Some political analysts have theorized that the move was designed to make it appear that the administration is removing Trump's name when it really has no intention of doing so. 
The photo Collins posted showed the Kennedy Center's signage still obscured by scaffolding and tarps, sparking mockery. 
"Donald Trump’s ego is as fragile as a china eggshell," Bill Prady, creator of "The Big Bang Theory," posted on X. 
"We are governed by children," Douglas Heye, a former Republican National Committee official, posted on X. 
"This administration's level of pettiness is truly mindboggling," Franklin Harris, an editorial writer for Decatur Daily, posted on X. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.6%Robert Davis: 9.7%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Robert Davis: 3.4%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic7.9%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.1%Robert Davis: 15.2%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect23.1%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Robert Davis: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias13.9%This article: 51.9%Robert Davis: 20.5%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias51.9%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 3.6%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 25.9%Robert Davis: 5.0%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem25.9%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 5.5%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.6%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.9%Robert Davis: 14.2%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization13.9%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 25.9%Robert Davis: 8.2%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion25.9%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.2%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.8%Robert Davis: 4.2%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.8%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 13.9%Robert Davis: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof13.9%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 4.8%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.8%Robert Davis: 5.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.8%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.7%Robert Davis: 5.5%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote9.7%This article: 6.0%Robert Davis: 6.1%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection6.0%This article: 6.0%Robert Davis: 13.1%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice6.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 5.0%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

216 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers26%attributed speech160writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageBill Prady • 21 words • 100.0% coverageDouglas Heye • 16 words • 0.0% coverageFranklin Harris • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bill Prady

100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words38% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Bill Prady: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Bill Prady: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Bill Prady: 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.