‘Don’t know why, but I recognized the sound as gunshots. Then I saw President Trump swarmed and a sight that really shook me’ 22%

By Andrew Feinberg0%

4/26/2026, 4:54:18 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Representativeness Heuristic, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 43.7% saturation with 279 hits. Analysis detected 1,249 faulty-reasoning hits from 639 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.6% and a BS Rank of 22% (17,136 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.30% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump had seemingly just arrived  and the military color guard could not have been out of the room for more than a few minutes  when what sounded like five shots rang out from just behind the door closest to the table that my two colleagues and I had been assigned to for Saturday night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner. 
“Pop-pop-pop-pop-pop,” the jarring sounds rang out in rapid succession. 
People told me they thought a server had dropped a tray behind closed doors. 
For some reason, I knew better. 
I don't know why I recognized the sound as gunshots, but I did. 
Not that I needed confirmation to believe my ears, but as I turned to look in the direction where the rapid-fire sounds had come from, I saw something I had never seen in 10 years of covering the President of the United States: Secret Service agents, rushing through the room with their service weapons drawn. 
Plainclothes protective agents are a near-constant presence for anyone who spends time covering the president or other top officials. 
They always have some sort of lapel pin identifying them. 
Their suit jackets are cut generously to hide the holster and extra magazines on their belts. 
They stand around with their hands usually holding each other in a “ready” position  never in their pockets. 
But in the decade since I started on the White House beat, I never saw any of them such much as reach for their weapons. 
Let alone unholster them. 
Until now. 
As people began screaming and pulling at each other's clothes while urging them to “GET DOWN, GET DOWN!” 
under the table, security personnel began slamming the doors to Washington's largest ballroom. 
More noise from behind the door to the Hilton Hotel ballroom, then silence. 
Maybe it was because my table was behind me when I looked at the door. 
Maybe I was just too stubborn to heed warnings to get under the table. 
But my brain didn’t process protecting myself at that point. 
I remained sitting, turning my head to the right to see Trump and others at the dais being hustled out of the room. 
Then, as people remained sheltered, I saw a line of uniformed and other law enforcement, guns drawn, make their way from a side door into the center of the room. 
Quickly, dignitaries including most of the president's cabinet were ushered out under guard. 
Kash Patel, the FBI director, had been seated at a table nearby with reporters and editors from the Daily Mail. 
I had arrived at the dinner at the same time Patel did and watched just a single agent trail him as he’d made his way to his table. 
He and others, including a group that counted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth among it’s numbers paused at the back of the ballroom as if they were unsure of where to go. 
Eventually, they left under armed escort. 
The doors slammed. 
For the next hour, the room of nearly 1,000 reporters, saddled with terrible wifi and hardly any mobile service tried to do what we all do on a daily basis. 
Report. 
It was hard without much new information, though some people managed to get through to sources. 
Eventually, we were told “protocol” required that the dinner be canceled. 
Trump and the reporters who’d been trailing him as the protective “pool” returned to the White House, where he prepared to give a press conference. 
We were told Trump wanted to return and continue the dinner event and awards ceremony. 
Security concerns rightfully overruled that desire and he promised a return for the event “in the next 30 days.” 
As Trump frequently says, “we’ll see what happens.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.2%Andrew Feinberg: 2.9%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Andrew Feinberg: 3.1%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic11.7%This article: 16.3%Andrew Feinberg: 1.5%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic16.3%This article: 0.3%Andrew Feinberg: 1.0%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.3%This article: 11.6%Andrew Feinberg: 2.8%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 10.3%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.7%Andrew Feinberg: 0.6%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 1.5%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Andrew Feinberg: 2.0%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias3.0%This article: 8.6%Andrew Feinberg: 16.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias8.6%This article: 4.5%Andrew Feinberg: 1.9%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias4.5%This article: 4.9%Andrew Feinberg: 1.3%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error4.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.6%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 1.7%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 1.4%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 1.6%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Andrew Feinberg: 2.3%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias5.6%This article: 12.5%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect12.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 2.4%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.7%Andrew Feinberg: 4.5%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority4.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 1.4%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 1.7%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning1.7%This article: 14.6%Andrew Feinberg: 6.7%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization14.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.1%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.7%Andrew Feinberg: 3.8%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion7.7%This article: 0.9%Andrew Feinberg: 0.5%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 2.0%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.7%Andrew Feinberg: 0.9%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof1.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.7%Andrew Feinberg: 0.4%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division4.7%This article: 17.4%Andrew Feinberg: 2.2%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal17.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.8%Andrew Feinberg: 2.1%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 3.3%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.7%Andrew Feinberg: 1.8%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.7%This article: 43.7%Andrew Feinberg: 19.6%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice43.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 1.1%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 4.2%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

639 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

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

Analysis

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