Mediaite⁠70%

Jake Tapper Gobsmacked by Guest’s Wild Trump Theory: ‘Are You Saying He’s a Democratic Operative?’ ⁠45%

By Zachary Leeman⁠75%

7/14/2026, 11:51:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Begging the Question, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 23.6% saturation with 78 hits. Analysis detected 743 faulty-reasoning hits from 331 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠45% (12,098 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.30% of the article peer group.

CNN’s Jake Tapper was surprised by a guest’s take on President Donald Trump and asked if she was suggesting Trump is a secret “Democratic operative.” 
Tapper brought on Xochitl Hinojosa , a former communications director with the Democratic National Committee, and Mike Dubke , a former White House communications director during Trump’s first term, on Tuesday’s The Lead, and during a discussion about the midterms, Hinojosa argued it looked like Trump was trying to purposefully “sabotage” Republicans. 
“He’s not talking about the war, he’s not talking about gas prices, he is not talking about prices at the grocery store or all these great things that Mike just talked about. 
What he is talking about is that potentially two senators from Georgia were illegitimate. 
He is talking the 2020 election, which, why are we looking back?” 
Hinojosa said, referring to the president’s scheduled Thursday address to the nation where he will reportedly be discussing the 2020 presidential election. 
Hinojosa added she hopes networks do not cover Trump’s address live. 
“These are conspiracy theories. 
My hope is that it is not covered live on a lot of networks. 
But it is. 
It is a joke, I’m sorry, that he is trying to sabotage the midterm elections for Republicans. 
This is not what he should be talking about,” she said. 
“Are you saying he’s a Democratic operative?” 
a surprised Tapper asked. 
“I think maybe,” Hinojosa joked. 
“He was once a Democrat,” Tapper responded. 
“This is a long, long play. 
That is a long play. 
That doesn’t make any sense to me.” 
“ Manchurian Candidate territory,” Dubke joked, referring to the 1962 film starring Frank Sinatra or the 1959 novel it’s based on by Richard Condon . 
“I know. 
Somebody call Budd Schulberg ,” Tapper added, referring to the screenwriter behind films like 1954’s On the Waterfront and 1957’s A Face in the Crowd . 
Watch above via CNN . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.8%Zachary Leeman: 8.5%Mediaite: 5.0%Confirmation Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 1.0%Mediaite: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Zachary Leeman: 4.9%Mediaite: 3.8%Availability Heuristic10.0%This article: 9.7%Zachary Leeman: 1.0%Mediaite: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic9.7%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 1.1%Mediaite: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Zachary Leeman: 2.8%Mediaite: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias1.5%This article: 23.6%Zachary Leeman: 6.9%Mediaite: 9.1%Framing Effect23.6%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 1.0%Mediaite: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.3%Zachary Leeman: 0.6%Mediaite: 0.4%Status Quo Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.4%Mediaite: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Zachary Leeman: 1.3%Mediaite: 1.6%Pessimism Bias4.5%This article: 18.4%Zachary Leeman: 18.8%Mediaite: 14.7%Negativity Bias18.4%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 2.3%Mediaite: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Zachary Leeman: 3.6%Mediaite: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error15.7%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 2.3%Mediaite: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 1.9%Mediaite: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.1%Mediaite: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.8%Mediaite: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 3.2%Mediaite: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Zachary Leeman: 0.6%Mediaite: 0.6%Primacy Effect1.2%This article: 2.1%Zachary Leeman: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 3.9%Mediaite: 3.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.9%Mediaite: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.9%Zachary Leeman: 4.7%Mediaite: 3.5%Appeal to Authority7.9%This article: 2.1%Zachary Leeman: 3.4%Mediaite: 2.4%False Dilemma2.1%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 1.5%Mediaite: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 1.5%Zachary Leeman: 0.6%Mediaite: 0.3%Circular Reasoning1.5%This article: 5.1%Zachary Leeman: 10.4%Mediaite: 7.6%Hasty Generalization5.1%This article: 9.7%Zachary Leeman: 0.7%Mediaite: 0.4%Red Herring9.7%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 1.2%Mediaite: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.0%Zachary Leeman: 8.5%Mediaite: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion16.0%This article: 19.0%Zachary Leeman: 2.8%Mediaite: 1.6%Begging the Question19.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 4.6%Mediaite: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.6%Zachary Leeman: 1.9%Mediaite: 1.2%Burden of Proof3.6%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.1%Zachary Leeman: 4.2%Mediaite: 3.0%Anecdotal15.1%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.7%Zachary Leeman: 2.7%Mediaite: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.7%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.1%Zachary Leeman: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.3%Personal Incredulity2.1%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 2.1%Zachary Leeman: 0.9%Mediaite: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy2.1%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 5.7%Mediaite: 3.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.1%Zachary Leeman: 3.9%Mediaite: 3.2%Quote-first Misdirection9.1%This article: 12.1%Zachary Leeman: 8.7%Mediaite: 8.3%Biased Writer Voice12.1%This article: 4.2%Zachary Leeman: 1.8%Mediaite: 1.6%Indoctrination4.2%This article: 15.7%Zachary Leeman: 2.6%Mediaite: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias15.7%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.3%Mediaite: 1.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Zachary Leeman: 1.1%Mediaite: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.5%

331 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers64%attributed speech118writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageXochitl Hinojosa • 32 words • 0.0% coverageXochitl Hinojosa • 14 words • 0.0% coverageXochitl Hinojosa • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageXochitl Hinojosa • 11 words • 0.0% coverageXochitl Hinojosa • 4 words • 0.0% coverageXochitl Hinojosa • 14 words • 100.0% coverageXochitl Hinojosa • 3 words • 0.0% coverageXochitl Hinojosa • 17 words • 0.0% coverageXochitl Hinojosa • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJake Tapper • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageXochitl Hinojosa • 5 words • 100.0% coverageJake Tapper • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJake Tapper • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJake Tapper • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJake Tapper • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMike Dubke • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJake Tapper • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJake Tapper • 26 words • 0.0% coverageCNN • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mike Dubke

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words12% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Politically Left Leaning B-44.1 ptsWriter: 44.1%Mike Dubke: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-33.9 ptsWriter: 33.9%Mike Dubke: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-21.2 ptsWriter: 21.2%Mike Dubke: 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.