'Getting filtered out': Young Americans struggle to land jobs in the new hiring landscape ⁠74%

By Arabella Bennett⁠97%

7/25/2026, 4:00:33 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 25.8% saturation with 85 hits. Analysis detected 623 faulty-reasoning hits from 330 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (5,717 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.90% of the article peer group.

Artificial intelligence is reshaping the hiring process, but for many recent graduates, it is also creating new frustrations. 
As employers increasingly rely on automated screening tools to sort through thousands of applications, job seekers say they worry qualified candidates are being filtered out before a hiring manager ever sees their resume. 
Marist graduate Samantha Kehler joined FOX Business’ Maria Bartiromo on "Mornings with Maria" to discuss how AI has changed her search for work and why she believes automated hiring systems have made breaking into today’s job market even more difficult. 
"I've tried to definitely do a little bit of training," Kehler said on learning AI. 
"It definitely helped me understand how to work the AI in your favor rather than just getting kind of a short answer from AI and really using it to not just answer my questions, but to help me with research and synthesize information faster." 
DIMON URGES CALM OVER FEAR ABOUT AI'S IMPACT ON JOBS: 'STOP BEING BREATHLESS OVER IT' 
While AI can help applicants tailor resumes and conduct research, many companies now use applicant tracking systems to scan resumes for keywords before they ever reach a recruiter. 
That shift has fueled concerns among job seekers that the hiring process is becoming less personal. 
"I know that AI is pretty much the one who is reading my application," Kehler said. 
"I don't feel like my resume and my cover letters are being read by human eyes... 
I know I'm just getting filtered out if I don't have a specific keyword." 
INSIDE THE AI BOOM: A TALENT CHIEF'S PLAYBOOK FOR WINNING IN THE JOB MARKET 
Kehler added that receiving rejection emails "at two in the morning" reinforces her belief that automated systems are increasingly driving the hiring process, leaving many applicants wondering whether they ever had a chance to make a human first impression. 
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.1%Arabella Bennett: 8.6%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 2.5%FoxBusiness: 3.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Arabella Bennett: 5.6%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic10.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 6.3%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Arabella Bennett: 14.4%FoxBusiness: 12.9%Framing Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 2.3%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.5%Arabella Bennett: 1.5%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 1.5%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.3%Arabella Bennett: 14.3%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias13.3%This article: 18.5%Arabella Bennett: 2.7%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias18.5%This article: 14.5%Arabella Bennett: 7.2%FoxBusiness: 7.9%Negativity Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 2.4%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Arabella Bennett: 2.2%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error4.8%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 2.1%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.8%Arabella Bennett: 2.7%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 8.0%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 3.0%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.8%Arabella Bennett: 13.0%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization14.8%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 1.5%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.5%Arabella Bennett: 5.7%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion4.5%This article: 4.2%Arabella Bennett: 1.5%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question4.2%This article: 11.8%Arabella Bennett: 6.9%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.8%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 25.8%Arabella Bennett: 4.1%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal25.8%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.5%Arabella Bennett: 2.3%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.5%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.8%Arabella Bennett: 3.7%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote14.8%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 3.3%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 7.1%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 1.6%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arabella Bennett: 4.5%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Arabella Bennett: 3.5%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.4%

330 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker56%attributed speech146writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageSamantha Kehler • 40 words • 0.0% coverageSamantha Kehler • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSamantha Kehler • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageSamantha Kehler • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSamantha Kehler • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSamantha Kehler • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSamantha Kehler • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Samantha Kehler

70%flagged-word coverage
184 attributed words100% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote-33.6 ptsWriter: 33.6%Samantha Kehler: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Samantha Kehler: 0.0%0.0%

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.