Iran war live: Tehran, Trump yet to comment on 60-day truce extension plan ⁠80%

By Lyndal Rowlands⁠86% Zaid Sabah⁠87% Adam Hancock⁠97%

5/28/2026, 5:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 85.7% saturation with 78 hits. Analysis detected 386 faulty-reasoning hits from 91 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠80% (4,455 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.60% of the article peer group.

White House sources confirmed that the United States and Iran have reached an agreement on a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to extend the ceasefire for 60 days to allow for formal negotiations, but US President Donald Trump has yet to give his approval. 
Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency, citing a source close to the negotiating team, said the text of the MoU had not yet been finalised or confirmed, and the public would be notified once that occurred. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 47.3%Lyndal Rowlands: 6.3%Al Jazeera: 2.7%Confirmation Bias47.3%This article: 47.3%Lyndal Rowlands: 1.4%Al Jazeera: 0.8%Anchoring Bias47.3%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 5.7%Al Jazeera: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.1%Al Jazeera: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 3.9%Al Jazeera: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.3%Lyndal Rowlands: 23.5%Al Jazeera: 8.5%Framing Effect14.3%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 1.3%Al Jazeera: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.9%Al Jazeera: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.2%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 4.4%Al Jazeera: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 4.1%Al Jazeera: 2.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 52.7%Lyndal Rowlands: 26.4%Al Jazeera: 10.3%Negativity Bias52.7%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 3.1%Al Jazeera: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.3%Al Jazeera: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.4%Al Jazeera: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.7%Al Jazeera: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 38.5%Lyndal Rowlands: 2.5%Al Jazeera: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias38.5%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.2%Al Jazeera: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.4%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 4.4%Al Jazeera: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 1.7%Al Jazeera: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 1.1%Al Jazeera: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 7.0%Al Jazeera: 4.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 5.9%Al Jazeera: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 3.6%Al Jazeera: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 1.5%Al Jazeera: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.2%Al Jazeera: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 10.9%Al Jazeera: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 1.1%Al Jazeera: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 2.6%Al Jazeera: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.2%Al Jazeera: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.6%Al Jazeera: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.7%Al Jazeera: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 38.5%Lyndal Rowlands: 3.7%Al Jazeera: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)38.5%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.2%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 85.7%Lyndal Rowlands: 13.6%Al Jazeera: 2.8%Unattributed Quote85.7%This article: 47.3%Lyndal Rowlands: 6.8%Al Jazeera: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection47.3%This article: 52.7%Lyndal Rowlands: 10.5%Al Jazeera: 4.2%Biased Writer Voice52.7%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 1.4%Al Jazeera: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 0.6%Al Jazeera: 1.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 1.5%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lyndal Rowlands: 1.5%Al Jazeera: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

91 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker38%attributed speech56writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageTasnim news agency • 35 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tasnim news agency

100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+76.8 ptsWriter: 23.2%Tasnim news agency: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+23.2 ptsWriter: 76.8%Tasnim news agency: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-76.8 ptsWriter: 76.8%Tasnim news agency: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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