MS NOW⁠95%

Appeals court rejects Biden’s bid to block release of recordings with ghostwriter ⁠18%

By The Associated Press⁠63%

7/21/2026, 5:18:49 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Recency Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 37.9% saturation with 99 hits. Analysis detected 327 faulty-reasoning hits from 261 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠18% (18,023 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.30% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has rejected a request by Joe Biden to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts of his interviews with a memoir ghostwriter before he was elected president. 
A divided three-judge panel from the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suspended its decision until Aug. 3 to allow more time for Biden to consider another appeal. 
The panel’s 2-1 ruling late Monday found there is a “substantial” public interest in disclosing the material that Biden wants to keep under wraps. 
Redactions to the recordings would help protect Biden’s privacy, the majority noted. 
“We conclude that any remaining incursion on personal privacy from disclosure of the now-redacted materials likely does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure,” the court wrote. 
Mark Zwonitzer, who worked with Biden on his two memoirs, interviewed the Democrat at his home in 2016 and 2017. 
Biden’s lawyers say the conversations were candid, personal and intended to remain private. 
The recordings were obtained by special counsel Robert Hur, who investigated Biden’s handling of classified documents from his time as a senator from Delaware and as vice president. 
Republicans in Congress demanded the material after Hur declined to file charges against the then-president. 
Biden sued and sought an injunction to prevent the Justice Department under President Donald Trump, a Republican, from releasing the recordings to Congress and the conservative Heritage Foundation. 
The department previously argued that the recordings were exempt from disclosure under public records law. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.8%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.4%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%The Associated Press: 3.2%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic10.7%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.8%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 37.9%The Associated Press: 11.1%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect37.9%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.7%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%The Associated Press: 11.0%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias4.6%This article: 5.0%The Associated Press: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%The Associated Press: 2.2%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias13.4%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.0%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.7%The Associated Press: 2.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias10.7%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.9%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.3%The Associated Press: 3.8%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority10.3%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.0%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 5.6%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.7%The Associated Press: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.7%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.7%The Associated Press: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof5.7%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.3%The Associated Press: 1.7%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.3%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.8%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.9%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%The Associated Press: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias10.7%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

261 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers44%attributed speech145writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageCourt of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageMark Zwonitzer • 20 words • 0.0% coverageBiden’s lawyers • 13 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Hur • 28 words • 0.0% coverageRepublicans in Congress • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageJustice Department • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Robert Hur

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words24% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Politically Right Leaning -19.3 ptsWriter: 19.3%Robert Hur: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.