U.S. strikes Iranian military sites after ship was hit in Strait of Hormuz ⁠83%

By Karen DeYoung⁠0%

6/26/2026, 9:10:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 305 faulty-reasoning hits from 51 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (3,617 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.90% of the article peer group.

U.S. forces launched airstrikes against Iranian missile and drone storage locations Friday in what Central Command called a “powerful response” to “unwarranted aggression” by Iran with its Thursday attack on a commercial ship exiting the Strait of Hormuz. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 74.5%Karen DeYoung: 3.5%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias74.5%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 5.5%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 1.6%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 1.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 3.9%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Karen DeYoung: 32.9%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect100.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 5.1%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 7.2%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 28.3%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 5.5%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.6%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 4.1%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 74.5%Karen DeYoung: 8.5%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority74.5%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 1.4%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 2.7%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 74.5%Karen DeYoung: 3.7%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question74.5%This article: 100.0%Karen DeYoung: 10.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)100.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 3.4%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 74.5%Karen DeYoung: 10.4%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote74.5%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 8.7%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 25.5%Karen DeYoung: 11.5%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice25.5%This article: 74.5%Karen DeYoung: 1.8%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination74.5%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.6%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen DeYoung: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

51 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker75%attributed speech13writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageCentral Command • 38 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Central Command

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Central Command: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-100.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Central Command: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Central Command: 100.0%100.0%

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.