Raw Story93%

'Went down in flames!' MS NOW frenzied over Mike Johnson's 'massive embarrassment' 77%

By Matthew Chapman85%

6/30/2026, 7:37:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 59% saturation with 230 hits. Analysis detected 1,316 faulty-reasoning hits from 390 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.3% and a BS Rank of 77% (5,022 of 21,124 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 76.20% of the article peer group.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) attempted an end-run strategy to pass President Donald Trump's anti-voting-rights SAVE America Act through Congress  only for a contingent of Republicans to block it and deal him a fresh humiliation. 
And MS NOW commenters were quick to react. 
" Mike Johnson just tried to get the SAVE America Act through the House," said anchor Katy Tur, quoting Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman that it "went down in flames" and turning to reporter Mychael Schnell. 
"What exactly happened?" 
For starters, said Schnell, Johnson attempted to force it through by attaching it to the annual defense budget bill, or NDAA, "a very core, important piece of must-pass legislation." 
It was a plan concocted by conservative hardliners, led by Rep. 
Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL). 
"She has taken it upon herself, amid the President's pressure campaign, to pass this bill, to say that she would not pass any bills in the House unless the Senate acted on this legislation," said Schnell. 
"The Senate left town, so that opportunity was off the table"  but she said she would stop her protest if it were put to a vote in the House. 
Meanwhile, Schnell said, "Speaker Johnson chose a different route, trying to combine the two during this procedural vote," only for 14 House Republicans to block it, leading to the failure of a routine procedural vote. 
The bottom line, she continued, is that "it's a massive embarrassment and a blow to Speaker Johnson. 
It's never good when a rule vote fails. 
But the interesting thing here ... is that the left hand isn't really aware of what the right hand is doing when you talk about Republican leaders, because last week, President Trump had taken to Truth Social and said he did not want these Republicans in the House to be holding hostage these procedural rules in the NDAA in order to get the SAVE America bill passed," and Luna and Johnson still did it anyway. 
As a consequence of all this, said Schnell, "the House floor is right now paralyzed" and "there is still no movement in the SAVE America Act." 
There's simply no path to get it passed, she said  "but conservatives and the president himself are not yet ready to accept that reality." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.2%Matthew Chapman: 7.5%Rawstory: 7.7%Confirmation Bias19.2%This article: 9.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias9.0%This article: 2.1%Matthew Chapman: 3.6%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic2.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Matthew Chapman: 16.5%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Matthew Chapman: 2.5%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias15.1%This article: 59.0%Matthew Chapman: 22.3%Rawstory: 21.8%Negativity Bias59.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 24.9%Matthew Chapman: 3.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error24.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 28.2%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias28.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.6%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.5%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority9.0%This article: 19.2%Matthew Chapman: 4.1%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma19.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.1%Matthew Chapman: 9.9%Rawstory: 11.9%Hasty Generalization2.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 25.9%Matthew Chapman: 7.7%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion25.9%This article: 7.4%Matthew Chapman: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question7.4%This article: 14.4%Matthew Chapman: 3.5%Rawstory: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.4%This article: 19.2%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque19.2%This article: 6.4%Matthew Chapman: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.5%Burden of Proof6.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.2%Matthew Chapman: 4.2%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal9.2%This article: 6.4%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman6.4%This article: 19.2%Matthew Chapman: 2.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 2.8%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy2.8%This article: 2.1%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 5.4%Unattributed Quote2.1%This article: 1.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.4%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection1.0%This article: 14.1%Matthew Chapman: 16.0%Rawstory: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice14.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 11.3%Matthew Chapman: 6.2%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.6%Rawstory: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

390 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers84%attributed speech63writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageMS NOW • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageKaty Tur • 35 words • 0.0% coverageKaty Tur • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMychael Schnell • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMychael Schnell • 36 words • 0.0% coverageMychael Schnell • 30 words • 0.0% coverageMychael Schnell • 35 words • 0.0% coverageMychael Schnell • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMychael Schnell • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMychael Schnell • 75 words • 0.0% coverageMychael Schnell • 26 words • 0.0% coverageMychael Schnell • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

MS NOW

100%flagged-word coverage
8 attributed words2.4% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+42.9 ptsWriter: 57.1%MS NOW: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+25.4 ptsWriter: 74.6%MS NOW: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-12.7 ptsWriter: 12.7%MS NOW: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%MS NOW: 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.