Newsmax⁠75%

Leavitt Denies Reports of Iran Ceasefire Extension Talks ⁠0%

By Michael Katz⁠0%

4/15/2026, 9:18:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Unattributed Quote, and Appeal to Authority, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 11.5% saturation with 57 hits. Analysis detected 669 faulty-reasoning hits from 494 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Wednesday denied that the U.S. and Iran are seeking to extend a ceasefire set to expire April 21 by two weeks. 
Bloomberg reported earlier Wednesday, citing an unnamed person familiar with the matter, that the U.S. and Iran are considering a two-week ceasefire extension to allow more time to negotiate a peace deal. 
The move could reduce the prospect of a return to fighting despite an intensifying standoff over the Strait of Hormuz. 
Leavitt dismissed such accounts as "bad reporting" during Wednesday's briefing, which aired live on Newsmax and the free Newsmax2 streaming platform. 
"So, I saw some reporting again, bad reporting this morning, that we had formally requested an extension of the ceasefire," Leavitt said. 
"That is not true at this moment. 
We remain very much engaged in these negotiations. 
"In these talks, you heard from the vice president directly and the president this week that these conversations are productive and ongoing, and that's where we are right now." 
A U.S. delegation led by Vice President JD Vance held direct talks with Iran last weekend in Islamabad, just days after a two-week ceasefire took effect April 8. 
Hostilities began Feb. 28 with U.S. and Israeli airstrikes targeting Iran's political leadership and military infrastructure. 
The talks broke down, with Vance saying the U.S. did not see "an affirmative commitment" from Iran "that they will not seek a nuclear weapon." 
President Donald Trump then imposed a blockade on ships entering or leaving Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman and one of the world's most vital oil transit chokepoints. 
Trump told Fox News on Tuesday that he thinks Iran wants to make a deal "very badly." 
Pakistani mediators have been trying to organize another round of talks before the ceasefire deadline. 
The parties are expected to meet again, but no firm date has been confirmed. 
"I've also seen some reporting about the potentiality for in-person discussions," Leavitt said. 
"Again, those discussions are being had, but nothing is official until you hear it from us here at the White House." 
"But we feel good about the prospects of a deal. 
The president mentioned that in his interview yesterday, and it's obviously in the best interest of Iran to meet the president's demands. 
I think he's made his red lines in these negotiations very clear to the other side." 
Leavitt said the next round would likely take place in Islamabad. 
"I just want to make one point that's important to the president," Leavitt said. 
"The Pakistanis have been incredible mediators throughout this process, and we really appreciate their friendship and their efforts to bring this deal to a close. 
So, they are the only mediator in this negotiation. 
"While many countries have offered to help, the president believes it is important to streamline communication through the Pakistanis. 
And so that's what continues to take place." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.7%Michael Katz: 3.2%Newsmax: 3.4%Confirmation Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 1.1%Newsmax: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Michael Katz: 3.3%Newsmax: 3.2%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 3.4%Michael Katz: 0.8%Newsmax: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic3.4%This article: 1.6%Michael Katz: 0.9%Newsmax: 0.5%Hindsight Bias1.6%This article: 3.2%Michael Katz: 3.9%Newsmax: 3.8%Overconfidence Bias3.2%This article: 11.5%Michael Katz: 7.7%Newsmax: 11.0%Framing Effect11.5%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 1.3%Newsmax: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.5%Michael Katz: 1.3%Newsmax: 0.9%Status Quo Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Michael Katz: 4.1%Newsmax: 4.1%Optimism Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.8%Newsmax: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Michael Katz: 6.8%Newsmax: 10.3%Negativity Bias9.3%This article: 9.5%Michael Katz: 5.8%Newsmax: 3.0%Self-Serving Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.7%Newsmax: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 5.3%Newsmax: 2.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Michael Katz: 2.1%Newsmax: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.8%This article: 5.1%Michael Katz: 3.9%Newsmax: 2.0%Halo Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.6%Newsmax: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Michael Katz: 1.7%Newsmax: 1.9%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.5%Newsmax: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 2.4%Newsmax: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.1%Michael Katz: 5.4%Newsmax: 4.8%Appeal to Authority10.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 2.2%Newsmax: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 2.0%Newsmax: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 1.6%Michael Katz: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.2%Circular Reasoning1.6%This article: 1.8%Michael Katz: 4.7%Newsmax: 4.2%Hasty Generalization1.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.2%Newsmax: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.6%Newsmax: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 8.5%Newsmax: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 1.4%Michael Katz: 1.1%Newsmax: 1.1%Begging the Question1.4%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 4.1%Newsmax: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.4%Newsmax: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.5%Michael Katz: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.2%Appeal to Nature4.5%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 1.6%Newsmax: 0.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.0%Michael Katz: 2.4%Newsmax: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.7%Michael Katz: 4.0%Newsmax: 3.1%Unattributed Quote10.7%This article: 4.5%Michael Katz: 2.0%Newsmax: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.5%This article: 11.5%Michael Katz: 1.8%Newsmax: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice11.5%This article: 5.1%Michael Katz: 1.5%Newsmax: 1.0%Indoctrination5.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Katz: 0.5%Newsmax: 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Michael Katz: 1.8%Newsmax: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.0%

494 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers52%attributed speech235writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 21 words • 100.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 22 words • 100.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 21 words • 100.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 11 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 14 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 25 words • 100.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 9 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 19 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Karoline Leavitt

94%flagged-word coverage
217 attributed words84% of attributed speech54% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.6 ptsWriter: 15.3%Karoline Leavitt: 9.7%9.7%Unattributed Quote-3.9 ptsWriter: 13.6%Karoline Leavitt: 9.7%9.7%Indoctrination+11.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Karoline Leavitt: 11.5%11.5%Quote-first Misdirection+10.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Karoline Leavitt: 10.1%10.1%Attempt to Sell a Product +4.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Karoline Leavitt: 4.6%4.6%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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