Trump pivots from ‘speech of love’ to ‘you’re a disgrace’ in 24-hour media whiplash after correspondents’ dinner shooting 70%

By Andrew Feinberg0%

4/27/2026, 1:44:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Recency Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 43.9% saturation with 399 hits. Analysis detected 2,482 faulty-reasoning hits from 909 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.5% and a BS Rank of 70% (6,763 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.10% of the article peer group.

Over the course of American history, a few undelivered presidential speeches have taken on iconic status in the decades after they were supposed to have been given. 
There’s the address John F. 
Kennedy would have delivered in defense of American soft power as a bulwark against communism and authoritarian threats, in which he would have declared that there was “no better form of investment in our national security” than foreign aid and warned that American leadership was dependent on global “respect for our mission in the world.” 
There was Richard Nixon’s planned address to the nation in the event that Apollo 11’s lunar module engine failed to light, stranding astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin  “the men who went to the moon to explore in peace”  to “stay on the moon to rest in peace.” 
And of course, there’s the “speech of love” to the American news media that Donald Trump says he would have delivered had Saturday’s White House Correspondents Dinner been allowed to resume after a gunman attempted to sprint through layers of security in a failed attempt to assassinate the president and the senior officials who were scattered around the cavernous ballroom at the Washington, D.C. 
Hilton. 
In the run-up to the weekend’s marquee event  an annual fundraiser for scholarships administered by the White House Correspondents Association  media critics and political pundits spilled what would have probably been hundreds of gallons of ink in a pre-digital era on the propriety of the press breaking bread with a man who has spent years demonizing them as “the enemy of the people.” 
Would Trump use the open microphone before a captive audience of his longtime adversaries to go on the attack at a dinner meant as a celebration of the First Amendment? 
It was a good question  one Trump was more than willing to answer at what became probably the only Black Tie news conference in White House history. 
He told reporters he “was all set to really rip it” until the shooting, after which he mused that his planned remarks would’ve been “the most inappropriate speech ever made.” 
He even offered some praise for the thousands of journalists (your correspondent included) who’d endured the horrific events, remarking that he’d seen “a room that was just totally unified” in the wake of the attempted shooting. 
A day later, he told Fox News that during the brief time he was pushing to continue on with the program before Secret Service forced him to return to the White House, he tasked his aides with writing replacement remarks, what he called “a speech of love.” 
“But I didn’t get a chance to do that,” he added. 
He later told CBS News’ 60 Minutes something similar when he described pushing to remain at the venue over his bodyguards’ objections, telling correspondent Norah O’Donnell: “I would have had to just get up and say, ‘I love you all.’ 
And there was love in the room. 
It was amazing. 
There was love in the room.” 
But whatever goodwill he had briefly felt towards the country’s news media and the First Amendment that allows it to operate freely appeared to vanish in an instant hours later, when he sat for what he might have expected to be a softball interview with O’Donnell. 
Although the network that was once home to Edward R. 
Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather has undergone a decidedly pro-Trump makeover since it was purchased by billionaire David Ellison last year, under the stewardship of former New York Times conservative opinion journalist Bari Weiss, O’Donnell didn’t go to work to throw softballs on Sunday. 
Instead, she asked him to respond to the words written by his would-be assassin, who allegedly wrote that he was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes” in a manifesto sent to family members just before the attempted shooting. 
Trump’s reaction? 
Predictable. 
Less than a day after he could have well been shot, he threw away talk of “unity” and went after the messenger. 
“Well, I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would because you're-- you're he-- you're horrible people,” he said as he launched into one of the most surreal presidential soliloquies in the history of the long-running program. 
“I'm not a pedophile. 
Excuse me. 
Excuse me. 
I'm not a pedophile  I got associated with all-- stuff that has nothing to do with me. 
I was totally exonerated. 
Your friends on the other side of the plate are the ones that were involved with, little's say, Epstein or other things,” he said. 
“You shouldn't be reading that on 60 Minutes. 
You're a disgrace. 
But go ahead. 
Let's finish the interview.” 
If there was ever a post-shooting honeymoon between Trump and the press, it was over at that moment. 
Within a day, he, his wife, and his top spokesperson were back to the usual things, blaming Democrats for the shooting attempt and calling for ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel  again  because of a joke he’d told about First Lady Melania Trump days before the shooting. 
And now that Trump has repeatedly called for the White House Correspondents’ Association to reschedule and re-run the dinner, there can be no question about his motives for attending this time around. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.3%Andrew Feinberg: 2.9%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Andrew Feinberg: 3.1%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic10.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 1.5%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.5%Andrew Feinberg: 1.0%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias6.5%This article: 0.4%Andrew Feinberg: 2.8%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.4%This article: 9.2%Andrew Feinberg: 10.3%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect9.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.3%Andrew Feinberg: 0.6%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.3%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: 8.4%Andrew Feinberg: 2.0%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias8.4%This article: 36.4%Andrew Feinberg: 16.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias36.4%This article: 4.4%Andrew Feinberg: 1.9%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 1.3%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 4.4%Andrew Feinberg: 0.6%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias4.4%This article: 7.6%Andrew Feinberg: 1.7%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 1.4%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Andrew Feinberg: 1.6%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect5.7%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: 19.9%Andrew Feinberg: 2.3%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias19.9%This article: 9.1%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect9.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.3%Andrew Feinberg: 2.4%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.9%Andrew Feinberg: 4.5%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority11.9%This article: 3.3%Andrew Feinberg: 1.4%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.3%Andrew Feinberg: 6.7%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization8.3%This article: 5.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring5.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.1%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 3.8%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.1%Andrew Feinberg: 0.5%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 2.0%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 2.6%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque2.6%This article: 4.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.9%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof4.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.4%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.8%Andrew Feinberg: 2.2%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal0.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.6%Andrew Feinberg: 2.1%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.6%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: 2.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy2.0%This article: 15.8%Andrew Feinberg: 3.3%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote15.8%This article: 9.8%Andrew Feinberg: 1.8%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection9.8%This article: 43.9%Andrew Feinberg: 19.6%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice43.9%This article: 6.8%Andrew Feinberg: 1.1%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination6.8%This article: 5.0%Andrew Feinberg: 4.2%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.0%This article: 5.3%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.3%This article: 5.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.0%

909 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers54%attributed speech414writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJohn F. Kennedy • 55 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Nixon • 50 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 64 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 65 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 30 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 36 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 47 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 11 words • 0.0% coverageNorah O’Donnell • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageNorah O’Donnell • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 41 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 3 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 3 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Norah O’Donnell

100%flagged-word coverage
89 attributed words18% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Norah O’Donnell: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-71.0 ptsWriter: 71.0%Norah O’Donnell: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+39.4 ptsWriter: 15.7%Norah O’Donnell: 55.1%55.1%Indoctrination-15.0 ptsWriter: 15.0%Norah O’Donnell: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -11.6 ptsWriter: 11.6%Norah O’Donnell: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-10.9 ptsWriter: 10.9%Norah O’Donnell: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.9 ptsWriter: 10.9%Norah O’Donnell: 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.