WATCH LIVE: Trump delivers primetime speech on election integrity ⁠32%

By Molly Parks⁠22%

7/17/2026, 12:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 36.8% saturation with 56 hits. Analysis detected 250 faulty-reasoning hits from 152 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠32% (14,389 of 21,172 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.00% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump is set to give a televised speech to the nation about election integrity and interference on Thursday at 9 p.m. from the Oval Office. 
REPUBLICANS BEG TRUMP TO FOCUS ON 2026 IN PRIMETIME ADDRESS 
In the primetime address, Trump will discuss declassified findings related to the 2020 election that the White House has said will show foreign interference in that election cycle. 
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also said the president may discuss the war in Iran and the state of the economy at the top of the speech. 
Both ABC News and NBC News have said they will not carry the speech on their primetime networks but will air it on their streaming platforms instead. 
Rep. 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) had suggested on Wednesday that media networks deplatform the speech, calling it a “platforming of lies about our election.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.9%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 3.9%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 27.0%Molly Parks: 8.4%Washington Examiner: 8.5%Framing Effect27.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 17.8%Molly Parks: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias17.8%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.1%Molly Parks: 8.0%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias21.1%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 3.5%Washington Examiner: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.5%Washington Examiner: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 3.3%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 36.8%Molly Parks: 4.1%Washington Examiner: 3.9%Appeal to Authority36.8%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.5%Washington Examiner: 9.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.2%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.5%Molly Parks: 6.3%Washington Examiner: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion14.5%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.6%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.9%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.4%Molly Parks: 1.5%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.4%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.5%Molly Parks: 4.0%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Unattributed Quote14.5%This article: 14.5%Molly Parks: 3.3%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection14.5%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 4.5%Washington Examiner: 11.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 3.1%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.3%Washington Examiner: 4.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

152 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers33%attributed speech102writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez • 22 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words44% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 100.0%100.0%

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.