Mediaite70%

Fox News Delivers On Air Apology Over Kevin O’Leary’s Unsubstantiated Claims Linking Opponents of His Data Center Project to China 17%

By Joe DePaolo56%

6/28/2026, 5:33:59 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Burden of Proof as the most egregious example at 24.8% saturation with 105 hits. Analysis detected 613 faulty-reasoning hits from 423 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.4% and a BS Rank of 17% (18,283 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.50% of the article peer group.

Fox News and Fox Business delivered a rare on-air apology across numerous shows over unsubstantiated claims made by Shark Tank star Kevin O'Leary linking opponents of his Utah data center project to China. 
In a roughly 45-second statement at the conclusion of the Big Weekend Show Saturday, host Johnny Joey Jones addressed claims made by O'Leary that Alliance for a Better Utah and Elevate Strategies  two groups which have opposed O'Leary's Stratos Project data center development  were funded by the Chinese Communist Party. 
"Kevin O'Leary appeared as a guest on the show on May 24 and discussed the ongoing controversy surrounding his planned data center project in Utah," Jones said. 
"He made certain claims relating to the opponents of his project. 
Mr. 
O'Leary has now corrected the record and explained he has 'no evidence' that the Alliance for a Better Utah, Josh Kantor or Taylor Knuth are funded by China or the Chinese communist party. 
Fox News Media is likewise aware of no evidence that they are funded by, or acting in the direction of, or in coordination with Chinese interests in opposing Mr. 
O'Leary's project. 
Fox News Media also apologizes for the error." 
The apology has aired across four shows on Fox News and Fox Business over the past four days. 
In addition to the Big Weekend Show, it was also aired on the Kayleigh McEnany-hosted Saturday in America  as well as the Maria Bartiromo-helmed Mornings with Maria and the Big Money Show on Fox Business. 
O'Leary himself walked back the claims on social media  though he stopped short of an apology. 
"Recently I appeared on various news programs and would like to clarify that I have no evidence that Alliance for a Better Utah, Elevate Strategies, Gabrielle Finlayson, Taylor Knuth or Josh Kanter are funded by China or the Chinese Communist Party," O'Leary wrote. 
In the original comments, O'Leary made clear he believes the opposition to his project is coming directly from China. 
"Who would want us to stop building our electrical grid?" 
O'Leary said on the May 11 edition of Mornings with Maria. 
"Who would want to stop us from having compute capacity to develop AI? 
Which adversary would want that? 
There's only one. 
It's China." 
Watch above, via Fox News. 
New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters" 
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. 
Subscribe now! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.6%Joe DePaolo: 3.9%Mediaite: 5.0%Confirmation Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Joe DePaolo: 2.9%Mediaite: 3.8%Availability Heuristic4.3%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: 0.7%Joe DePaolo: 1.4%Mediaite: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.7%This article: 24.3%Joe DePaolo: 13.2%Mediaite: 9.1%Framing Effect24.3%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: 3.8%Joe DePaolo: 0.9%Mediaite: 1.2%Optimism Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 2.1%Mediaite: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Joe DePaolo: 13.7%Mediaite: 14.7%Negativity Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.4%Mediaite: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.9%Mediaite: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%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: 1.9%Joe DePaolo: 3.4%Mediaite: 1.3%Halo Effect1.9%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: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.6%Mediaite: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.8%Mediaite: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%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: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.8%Mediaite: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 7.8%Joe DePaolo: 1.3%Mediaite: 2.4%False Dilemma7.8%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.3%Mediaite: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%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: 2.6%Joe DePaolo: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.4%Red Herring2.6%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 2.2%Mediaite: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 10.0%Mediaite: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%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: 24.8%Joe DePaolo: 1.9%Mediaite: 1.2%Burden of Proof24.8%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: 16.8%Joe DePaolo: 2.0%Mediaite: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.8%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: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%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: 9.2%Joe DePaolo: 3.2%Mediaite: 3.3%Unattributed Quote9.2%This article: 10.2%Joe DePaolo: 2.2%Mediaite: 3.2%Quote-first Misdirection10.2%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 6.4%Mediaite: 8.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe DePaolo: 1.1%Mediaite: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%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: 7.1%Joe DePaolo: 2.0%Mediaite: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.1%

423 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers50%attributed speech213writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageJohnny Joey Jones • 52 words • 0.0% coverageJohnny Joey Jones • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageFox News Media • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageFox News Media • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageKevin O'Leary • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageKevin O'Leary • 10 words • 100.0% coverageKevin O'Leary • 11 words • 0.0% coverageKevin O'Leary • 13 words • 100.0% coverageKevin O'Leary • 5 words • 100.0% coverageKevin O'Leary • 3 words • 0.0% coverageKevin O'Leary • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageMediaite • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Fox News Media

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words18% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.8 ptsWriter: 10.8%Fox News Media: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Fox News Media: 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.