Mediaite⁠70%

Ken Burns Blasts American Divisions: 'There's Only Us' ⁠80%

By Kathianne Boniello⁠82%

7/4/2026, 1:43:58 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, In-Group Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 35.5% saturation with 121 hits. Analysis detected 1,185 faulty-reasoning hits from 341 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠80% (4,568 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.10% of the article peer group.

Famed historian and documentary film maker Ken Burns sat down with MS Now’s Jonathan Capehart to discuss the state of American democracy — with Burns chiding Americans for an apparent doom and gloom attitude over today’s politics. 
A first look at the sit down between the pair aired Saturday on MS NOW's The Weekend, as America celebrated the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 
When Capehart asked Burns his "greatest hope" for the future, the historian naturally first looked to the past: 
JONATHAN CAPEHART: What's your greatest hope for America's next 250 years? 
KEN BURNS: It's all there — I think, what you have to do is, we were way more divided during the revolution, way more divided during the Civil War, way more divided in the period after the Civil War, Reconstruction, way more divided during Vietnam. 
So, I think we have to stop the kind of narcissistic chicken little, 'Oh, this is the worst time ever,' and actually realize that the responsibilities of citizenship that they handed to us require kind of muscular and active engagement, and maybe to also think of the future in the way they did about us, to say our job may mean restoration and repair right now, that's that's the job that lies ahead of us, and to heal the divisions. 
I've said many times that I've spent the last 50 years making films about the US, but I also make films about us, that is to say, the lower case, two-letter, plural, pronoun, all of the intimacy of 'us' and 'we' and 'our,' and all of the majesty and complexity, and contradiction, and even controversy of the US. 
It's a beautiful thing, and if I have learned one thing, Jonathan, in all of that half century of work, there's only us. 
There's no them. 
Them is the construct of people who are not willing to put up with the messiness and the inclusion of a democratic process. 
Watch above via YouTube. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 24.0%Kathianne Boniello: 5.4%Mediaite: 5.0%Confirmation Bias24.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%Kathianne Boniello: 5.9%Mediaite: 3.8%Availability Heuristic13.2%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 1.4%Mediaite: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.6%Mediaite: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 17.0%Kathianne Boniello: 1.4%Mediaite: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias17.0%This article: 2.3%Kathianne Boniello: 11.4%Mediaite: 9.1%Framing Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 1.0%Mediaite: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.5%Kathianne Boniello: 2.3%Mediaite: 1.6%Pessimism Bias23.5%This article: 13.2%Kathianne Boniello: 22.8%Mediaite: 14.7%Negativity Bias13.2%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 1.6%Mediaite: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 1.9%Mediaite: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.8%Mediaite: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 24.3%Kathianne Boniello: 4.4%Mediaite: 2.1%In-Group Bias24.3%This article: 6.7%Kathianne Boniello: 1.4%Mediaite: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 1.6%Mediaite: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.8%Mediaite: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 1.6%Mediaite: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.6%Primacy Effect12.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 23.5%Kathianne Boniello: 8.1%Mediaite: 3.8%Ad Hominem23.5%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 3.1%Mediaite: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.0%Kathianne Boniello: 4.1%Mediaite: 3.5%Appeal to Authority12.0%This article: 26.7%Kathianne Boniello: 3.4%Mediaite: 2.4%False Dilemma26.7%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 1.4%Mediaite: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 17.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.6%Mediaite: 0.3%Circular Reasoning17.0%This article: 13.2%Kathianne Boniello: 10.1%Mediaite: 7.6%Hasty Generalization13.2%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 1.9%Mediaite: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 23.5%Kathianne Boniello: 9.5%Mediaite: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion23.5%This article: 6.7%Kathianne Boniello: 2.1%Mediaite: 1.6%Begging the Question6.7%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 2.2%Mediaite: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 1.5%Mediaite: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.9%Mediaite: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 7.3%Mediaite: 3.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 6.7%Kathianne Boniello: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.1%No True Scotsman6.7%This article: 17.6%Kathianne Boniello: 4.2%Mediaite: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.6%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.2%Kathianne Boniello: 3.3%Mediaite: 3.3%Unattributed Quote3.2%This article: 0.9%Kathianne Boniello: 3.7%Mediaite: 3.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.9%This article: 35.5%Kathianne Boniello: 10.3%Mediaite: 8.3%Biased Writer Voice35.5%This article: 23.5%Kathianne Boniello: 3.4%Mediaite: 1.6%Indoctrination23.5%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 2.5%Mediaite: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathianne Boniello: 2.5%Mediaite: 1.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Kathianne Boniello: 0.3%Mediaite: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.2%

341 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers71%attributed speech98writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageJonathan Capehart • 11 words • 100.0% coverageKen Burns • 45 words • 0.0% coverageKen Burns • 80 words • 100.0% coverageKen Burns • 58 words • 100.0% coverageKen Burns • 23 words • 0.0% coverageKen Burns • 3 words • 100.0% coverageKen Burns • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ken Burns

100%flagged-word coverage
232 attributed words95% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice-39.3 ptsWriter: 64.3%Ken Burns: 25.0%25.0%Indoctrination+34.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ken Burns: 34.5%34.5%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Ken Burns: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+1.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ken Burns: 1.3%1.3%

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.