The Blaze⁠79%

USA Today takes aim at Caitlin Clark again — and gets humiliated AGAIN ⁠89%

By Carlos Garcia⁠64%

7/24/2026, 5:08:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Unattributed Quote, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 56.2% saturation with 208 hits. Analysis detected 1,337 faulty-reasoning hits from 370 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 82.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠89% (2,418 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.00% of the article peer group.

USA Today tried once again to smear Indiana Fever star Caitlin Clark on Friday, and the outlet was humiliated once again. 
The news outlet published an opinion piece suggesting that Clark's insistence on calling for a foul when she was assaulted on the court was placing lesbian black players in danger of getting lynched by white supremacists. 
'What in the actual HELL? 
You utter, total, spite-filled brainless JERKS.' 
An uproar followed, and the writer locked down her account and issued a bizarre statement admitting she had erred somewhat. 
A day later, the outlet suggested that Clark had ignored a WNBA event for spurious and petty reasons. 
"Caitlin Clark skipped the WNBA Orange Carpet on Thursday, opting to get her hair done in her hometown of Des Moines," the outlet's post on social media reads . 
A community note on the X platform undermined the attempt to mischaracterize Clark's decision. 
"Caitlin was hosting a charity dinner in her hometown," the note said. 
The outlet was immediately excoriated by many on social media. 
"How in the world is USA TODAY still existing with SEXIST headlines like this only aimed at Caitlin Clark?! 
They just keep doubling down on their ignorance and stupidity!" 
sportscaster Linda Cohn responded . 
"For the love of god. 
What is the matter with you people. 
Maybe she needs the support of her family after all your bullying," Amy Siskind replied . 
"What in the actual HELL? 
You utter, total, spite-filled brainless JERKS," another critic said . 
The outlet issued a "clarification" about seven hours later. 
RELATED: Caitlin Clark puts black lesbians at risk of death, USA Today writer suggests — and cites Emmett Till lynching 
"Caitlin Clark was attending an event for the Caitlin Clark Foundation, which is why she missed the WNBA All-Star Weekend Orange Carpet," the outlet posted. 
Some did not think the correction was enough. 
"Wait, so the day after you publish a column claiming her actions evoke Emmitt [sic] Till and will get people lynched, you rush and post an unverified slanderous headline that turns out to be a lie? 
Do you wonder why you're a joke?" 
one detractor responded . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.2%Carlos Garcia: 4.1%Blaze Media: 5.6%Confirmation Bias16.2%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Carlos Garcia: 3.4%Blaze Media: 3.2%Availability Heuristic9.7%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.6%Blaze Media: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.7%Carlos Garcia: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.8%Hindsight Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.0%Blaze Media: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.1%Carlos Garcia: 11.1%Blaze Media: 9.6%Framing Effect18.1%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect7.3%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.2%Blaze Media: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.7%Blaze Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 56.2%Carlos Garcia: 12.1%Blaze Media: 9.8%Negativity Bias56.2%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.6%Blaze Media: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.2%Blaze Media: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.8%Blaze Media: 2.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.0%Blaze Media: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.7%Blaze Media: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.1%Carlos Garcia: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.1%Recency Bias8.1%This article: 3.5%Carlos Garcia: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.5%Primacy Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%Carlos Garcia: 3.4%Blaze Media: 2.6%Ad Hominem13.2%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.8%Blaze Media: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 3.6%Blaze Media: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.4%Blaze Media: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.4%Blaze Media: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 6.8%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning6.8%This article: 13.2%Carlos Garcia: 5.1%Blaze Media: 8.9%Hasty Generalization13.2%This article: 5.4%Carlos Garcia: 1.6%Blaze Media: 0.8%Red Herring5.4%This article: 8.1%Carlos Garcia: 1.0%Blaze Media: 0.9%Bandwagon8.1%This article: 46.2%Carlos Garcia: 10.5%Blaze Media: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion46.2%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.9%Blaze Media: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 19.5%Carlos Garcia: 2.1%Blaze Media: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.5%This article: 9.7%Carlos Garcia: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.2%Tu Quoque9.7%This article: 9.7%Carlos Garcia: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.0%Burden of Proof9.7%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.2%Carlos Garcia: 2.3%Blaze Media: 2.6%Anecdotal2.2%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.6%Carlos Garcia: 2.1%Blaze Media: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.6%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.4%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity1.4%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 38.6%Carlos Garcia: 3.9%Blaze Media: 2.8%Unattributed Quote38.6%This article: 14.6%Carlos Garcia: 3.9%Blaze Media: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection14.6%This article: 29.2%Carlos Garcia: 6.5%Blaze Media: 10.6%Biased Writer Voice29.2%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 2.3%Blaze Media: 4.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.9%Blaze Media: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 5.7%Blaze Media: 7.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 3.6%Blaze Media: 2.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

370 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers24%attributed speech283writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageUSA Today • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageLinda Cohn • 5 words • 0.0% coverageLinda Cohn • 5 words • 0.0% coverageLinda Cohn • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Siskind • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageUSA Today • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

USA Today

100%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words62% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%USA Today: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+13.4 ptsWriter: 40.3%USA Today: 53.7%53.7%Biased Writer Voice-38.2 ptsWriter: 38.2%USA Today: 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.