Mediaite70%

CNN’s Van Jones: ‘I Really Do Have to Give President Trump Credit’ for Attending WH Correspondents’ Dinner 45%

By Joe DePaolo56%

7/24/2026, 5:38:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Burden of Proof, and Unattributed Quote, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 23.4% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 715 faulty-reasoning hits from 346 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.8% and a BS Rank of 45% (12,030 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.00% of the article peer group.

CNN’s Van Jones praised President Donald Trump for attending Friday night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner. 
Speaking during the network’s coverage of the dinner, Jones lauded for subjecting himself to potential criticism from the speakers taking the podium. 
CNN anchor John Berman threw to Jones by noting that journalists will be receiving awards prior to Trump’s speech  which was not how the evening was supposed to proceed back on April 25 when it was originally scheduled. 
“The president was going to speak first, then the awards, so he could have left, in theory, if he wanted to,” Berman said. 
“This time, he’s going to have to sit through and watch awards being given to reporters who report on him maybe in ways he doesn’t like. 
One wonders how he might feel about that.” 
Jones made clear he believes Trump deserves kudos. 
“You really do have to give President Trump credit tonight,” Jones said. 
“I mean, we were saying he was going to basically do his thing and run away. 
He’s not running away. 
He’s going to be there. 
And maybe someone will have the courage to speak up [against him]. 
Maybe they won’t. 
But he’s putting himself in harm’s way in that regard.” 
Hundreds of former journalists and a number of press freedom groups signed on to a letter imploring the journalists in the room to denounce the president for attacking the profession  particularly in light of the administration’s recent failed efforts to subpoena New York Times correspondents. 
“Our message to the White House Correspondents’ Association is now more urgent: forcefully stand up for freedom of the press in front of the President, publicly defend the journalists he attacks, and vow to resist his administration’s concerted effort to undermine the First Amendment,” the letter said ( via the AP ). 
Watch above, via CNN. 
The post CNN’s Van Jones: ‘I Really Do Have to Give President Trump Credit’ for Attending WH Correspondents’ Dinner first appeared on Mediaite . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.5%Joe DePaolo: 3.9%Mediaite: 5.0%Confirmation Bias18.5%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 2.9%Mediaite: 3.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.0%Mediaite: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.2%Mediaite: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.4%Mediaite: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.4%Joe DePaolo: 13.2%Mediaite: 9.1%Framing Effect23.4%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.8%Joe DePaolo: 0.9%Mediaite: 1.2%Optimism Bias9.8%This article: 3.2%Joe DePaolo: 2.1%Mediaite: 1.6%Pessimism Bias3.2%This article: 13.3%Joe DePaolo: 13.7%Mediaite: 14.7%Negativity Bias13.3%This article: 4.3%Joe DePaolo: 0.4%Mediaite: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias4.3%This article: 5.2%Joe DePaolo: 1.9%Mediaite: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error5.2%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.6%Mediaite: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.0%Mediaite: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Joe DePaolo: 3.4%Mediaite: 1.3%Halo Effect13.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.0%Mediaite: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.6%Joe DePaolo: 0.6%Mediaite: 2.3%Recency Bias4.6%This article: 11.3%Joe DePaolo: 0.8%Mediaite: 0.6%Primacy Effect11.3%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 3.5%Mediaite: 3.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.3%Mediaite: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.3%Joe DePaolo: 1.8%Mediaite: 3.5%Appeal to Authority13.3%This article: 1.2%Joe DePaolo: 1.3%Mediaite: 2.4%False Dilemma1.2%This article: 2.9%Joe DePaolo: 0.3%Mediaite: 1.3%Slippery Slope2.9%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 5.8%Mediaite: 7.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 13.3%Joe DePaolo: 2.2%Mediaite: 0.9%Bandwagon13.3%This article: 3.5%Joe DePaolo: 10.0%Mediaite: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion3.5%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.7%Mediaite: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 2.1%Mediaite: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 15.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.9%Mediaite: 1.2%Burden of Proof15.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 2.0%Mediaite: 3.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.2%Joe DePaolo: 2.0%Mediaite: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.2%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 6.6%Joe DePaolo: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.3%Personal Incredulity6.6%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.0%Joe DePaolo: 3.2%Mediaite: 3.3%Unattributed Quote15.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 2.2%Mediaite: 3.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 6.4%Mediaite: 8.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 15.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.1%Mediaite: 1.6%Indoctrination15.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.6%Mediaite: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.2%Mediaite: 1.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 2.0%Mediaite: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

346 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers56%attributed speech151writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageVan Jones • 15 words • 0.0% coverageVan Jones • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Berman • 39 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Berman • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Berman • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageVan Jones • 8 words • 0.0% coverageVan Jones • 12 words • 0.0% coverageVan Jones • 16 words • 0.0% coverageVan Jones • 4 words • 0.0% coverageVan Jones • 5 words • 0.0% coverageVan Jones • 12 words • 0.0% coverageVan Jones • 3 words • 0.0% coverageVan Jones • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Van Jones

95%flagged-word coverage
107 attributed words55% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote-34.4 ptsWriter: 34.4%Van Jones: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-34.4 ptsWriter: 34.4%Van Jones: 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.