Tom Hanks' brutal insult to MS NOW reporter in shocking on-air outburst at Obama library opening ⁠19%

By Alex Hammer⁠52%

6/18/2026, 9:24:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 21.8% saturation with 128 hits. Analysis detected 929 faulty-reasoning hits from 586 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠19% (17,821 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.40% of the article peer group.

A-list actor Tom Hanks took a surprise shot at MS NOW while attending the ceremonial opening of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago on Thursday. 
Hanks, 69, found himself face to face with a reporter from the network shortly after arriving. 
MS NOW Senior National and Political Correspondent Jacob Soboroff was streaming live and approached Hanks. 
'Great to see you,' Soboroff said, eagerly attempting to get Hanks' attention. 
The actor appeared busy, but eventually acknowledged Soboroff after some light pestering. 
He broke the silence with a quip: 'What can I do for the 800 people watching MS NOW?' - a nod to the network's waning viewership. 
'Oh, come on. 
We're live on MS NOW,' Soboroff said, putting his hand on Hanks' shoulder before offering a smile. 
'All right - add a zero to it,' Hanks said in a dead-pan tone. 
Tom Hanks, 69, found himself met with a reporter from the network shortly after arriving. 
MS NOW Senior National and Political Correspondent Jacob Soboroff was streaming live 
'Great to see you,' Soboroff said, eagerly attempting to get Hanks' attention. 
The actor appeared busy, but acknowledged Soboroff after some pestering. 
He quipped: 'What can I do for the 800 people watching MS NOW?' - a nod to the network's waning viewership 
Hanks: What can I do for the 800 people watching MSNOW? 
pic.twitter.com/ae9NmMmYzY 
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 18, 2026 
Soboroff shot back: 'I would say millions now that you're on our air.' 
'All right. 
All right,' Hanks said tentatively, before fielding some questions from Soboroff about the event. 
The moment was quickly clipped and received hundreds of thousands of views. 
The Daily Mail has approached MS NOW for comment. 
Like other linear networks, the progressive cable channel has shed a large amount of viewers over the years, despite a recent period of growth under President Rebecca Kutler, who assumed the position in February of last year. 
MS NOW is now averaging roughly 900,000 total viewers - down from a more than 1.1 million average recorded in 2016. 
As cord cutting continues, the network was renamed from MSNBC in November - part of a corporate restructuring effort by former parent company Comcast to address dips on its share price. 
The 43rd president's library hosted its opening ceremony on Thursday morning at the massive Jackson Park building in the city's South Side. 
The campus, which officially opens its doors to the public on Friday, was flooded with prominent political figures and celebrities as a boatload of festivities kicked off to celebrate the big day. 
A-listers swarmed the event, including John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen, former late-night talk show host Stephen Colbert, Oprah Winfrey, Tyler Perry, Steven Spielberg and former fashion model Jill Vedder, among others. 
The Obama Center project plans were made public in May 2017 and originally projected to be completed by 2021. 
But the COVID-19 pandemic sparked delays, along with the expansion of the center's original plans. 
The campus itself sits on 19 acres of land and includes a public park, museum, library, ample green space, and an NBA regulation-size basketball court. 
Approximately $850 million went into building the center, making it the most expensive presidential library in US history. 
The network is now under the ownership of Versant, a media company devoted almost entirely to domestic cable networks. 
Other networks under its umbrella include CNBC, Golf Channel, E!, Syfy, and Oxygen, all of which previously belonged to Comcast. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 2.9%Daily Mail: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Alex Hammer: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.7%Anchoring Bias3.6%This article: 11.8%Alex Hammer: 1.4%Daily Mail: 2.8%Availability Heuristic11.8%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.7%Daily Mail: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 1.1%Daily Mail: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Alex Hammer: 6.6%Daily Mail: 6.9%Framing Effect13.5%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.3%Alex Hammer: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.5%Status Quo Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Alex Hammer: 1.4%Daily Mail: 2.1%Optimism Bias2.2%This article: 3.6%Alex Hammer: 1.6%Daily Mail: 1.1%Pessimism Bias3.6%This article: 20.1%Alex Hammer: 11.4%Daily Mail: 10.9%Negativity Bias20.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 1.1%Daily Mail: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Alex Hammer: 1.5%Daily Mail: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error6.3%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 2.8%Daily Mail: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 1.0%Daily Mail: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Alex Hammer: 1.6%Daily Mail: 5.0%Halo Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 1.1%Daily Mail: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Alex Hammer: 0.6%Daily Mail: 1.7%Recency Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 2.9%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.6%Alex Hammer: 3.3%Daily Mail: 3.0%Appeal to Authority5.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 1.8%Daily Mail: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.3%Alex Hammer: 6.0%Daily Mail: 3.9%Hasty Generalization6.3%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.8%Daily Mail: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.0%Alex Hammer: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon2.0%This article: 2.7%Alex Hammer: 6.2%Daily Mail: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion2.7%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.7%Daily Mail: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.2%Alex Hammer: 2.0%Daily Mail: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.5%Alex Hammer: 1.8%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal5.5%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.0%Alex Hammer: 1.1%Daily Mail: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.1%Alex Hammer: 3.7%Daily Mail: 3.3%Unattributed Quote4.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 1.2%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 21.8%Alex Hammer: 6.0%Daily Mail: 8.9%Biased Writer Voice21.8%This article: 2.7%Alex Hammer: 0.8%Daily Mail: 1.0%Indoctrination2.7%This article: 6.3%Alex Hammer: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Alex Hammer: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Alex Hammer: 0.8%Daily Mail: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.4%

586 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers33%attributed speech391writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Soboroff • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Soboroff • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageTom Hanks • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Soboroff • 17 words • 0.0% coverageTom Hanks • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Soboroff • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Soboroff • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageTom Hanks • 21 words • 0.0% coverageTom Hanks • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Soboroff • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageTom Hanks • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDaily Mail • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageVersant • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tom Hanks

55%flagged-word coverage
86 attributed words44% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-32.7 ptsWriter: 32.7%Tom Hanks: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-9.5 ptsWriter: 9.5%Tom Hanks: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Tom Hanks: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Tom Hanks: 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.