BS Summary: This article contains 37 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 43.2% saturation with 441 hits. Analysis detected 3,003 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,021 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump likes to keep his most important assignments close to home. 
It’s no surprise, then, that he assigned negotiating a potential peace agreement with Iran to his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his frequent golfing companion, Steve Witkoff  both Manhattan real estate developers. 
But CNN reported that Tehran has indicated it no longer wants to speak with either of Trump’s emissaries, and would prefer Vice President JD Vance  whose support for the war has been muted after decrying foreign interventions for most of his political career. 
The supposed refusal to talk to Witkoff and Kushner isn’t bizarre. 
Both are strong supporters and fundraisers for Israel, and Kushner’s 2020 “peace plan” proposal  swiftly rejected by the Palestinians, who were not consulted beforehand  endorsed Israel’s aggressive expansion of settlements in the West Bank. 
Tehran sees in Kushner and Witkoff not good-faith negotiators, but representing forces in American politics most committed to their downfall. 
Kushner, in particular, has specialized in blending his personal, and especially financial, interests  and his deeply pro-Israel and pro-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ideological commitments  with the assignments given to him by his powerful father-in-law. 
During the first Trump administration, Kushner developed a strong personal bond with the Saudi prime minister and crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, which both men touted as vital assets in a crucial relationship for both countries. 
For “MBS,” his relationship with Kushner appeared crucial in securing support from Trump following the atrocious murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi (Full disclosure: He was a friend of mine for about 15 years before his heinous assassination). 
Trump has reportedly said of this support, at a make-or-break time for the crown prince’s political future, “I saved his ass.” 
For once, Trump was engaging in neither falsehood nor hyperbole. 
Without the White House batting aside Prince Mohammed’s responsibility  which the Saudi leader later accepted while denying ordering the hit  his father, the king, and the rest of the Saudi elite might have been forced to look for a different successor. 
The crown prince clearly believed that his close ties to Trump, especially through Kushner, were invaluable. 
After Trump lost to Biden in 2020, Kushner set up a private equity investment fund, Affinity Partners. 
Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, Public Investment Fund, was the first and largest investor in this venture, kicking in $2 billion. 
Kushner returned to the White House in the second administration to help spearhead the “Board of Peace.” 
It was set up initially to oversee the (thus far) entirely aspirational reconstruction of Gaza, although its remit has been expanded to global peace efforts, none of which have resulted in any initiatives. 
When Kushner said there was “no plan B” for Gaza, it became clear that he had no intention of heading up any actual reconstruction but instead presiding over a cruel hoax. 
The president’s son-in-law did produce a blueprint for Gaza reconstruction that was wholly divorced from realities on the ground and the needs of the 2.2 million Palestinians living there, instead imagining beachfront resorts, data centers, industrial parks, an airport, train system and other wild hallucinations. 
When Kushner said there was “no plan B” for Gaza, it became clear that he had no intention of heading up any actual reconstruction but instead presiding over a cruel hoax. 
However, he did begin scouring the Middle East for another $5 billion for Affinity Partners, work he has continued as he was brought into the Iran talks. 
Like the question of nepotism, conflicts of interest do not arise when it comes to Trump’s family, including Kushner. 
Kushner had told journalists that Affinity Partners “didn’t have to raise money for the next four years,” so he wouldn’t be once again mixing diplomacy and personal fundraising. 
That commitment was immediately abandoned. 
Kushner also developed strong ties to Qatar, especially during the boycott of that country by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt. 
That self-described “Anti-Terrorism Coalition” objected to Qatar’s bankrolling and media support for Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated parties across the Arab world. 
But as a result, Doha needed help in Washington, and Kushner obliged, helping steer Trump away from his initial impulse to back the quartet and instead side with the Pentagon in calling for an end to the boycott without major concessions from Qatar. 
Kushner’s ties to Qatar date back even further, from his catastrophic miscalculation of purchasing 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan for an astonishing $1.8 billion. 
The extraordinary mistake  one of his first major forays into business  threatened to destroy the real estate empire Kushner’s father had built. 
Eventually, a Canadian company that is partly owned by the Qatari sovereign wealth fund agreed to effectively bail the Kushners out of Jared’s record-breaking blunder by renting the building on disadvantageous terms for almost 100 years. 
Problem solved. 
But Kushner’s strongest Middle East ties are to Netanyahu, a close family friend. 
When the Israeli prime minister was a mid-level diplomat in New York, he reportedly used to frequently stay overnight at the Kushner home, even bedding down in Jared’s own room, with the young real estate scion dispatched to another quarter. 
Kushner’s ties to the Israeli far right are, therefore, not merely ideological and deeply religious  they are profoundly personal. 
It seems impossible to suggest that all of this could simply be put aside, making room for impartiality and sound judgment. 
Iran’s institutionalized leadership is about as untrustworthy a group as can be identified on the global stage. 
But, when it comes to Kushner  and Witkoff, for that matter  for once they may have a point. 
Asking Tehran to negotiate with Steve and Jared, while the latter is fronting for his old family friend, Netanyahu, and roaming the Middle East looking for billions in foreign investments for his fund, may be a very Trumpy demand. 
But while Vance may not be the ideal substitute, the current negotiating team is about as inappropriate a pair for this task that could be identified among the approximately 240 million adult U.S. citizens. 
Even the Trump administration can do better. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.6%Hussein Ibish: 7.5%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Hussein Ibish: 1.5%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic6.2%This article: 5.2%Hussein Ibish: 1.3%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.2%This article: 3.8%Hussein Ibish: 2.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Hussein Ibish: 10.5%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.9%Hussein Ibish: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.9%Hussein Ibish: 0.2%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.9%This article: 12.3%Hussein Ibish: 3.6%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias12.3%This article: 31.5%Hussein Ibish: 28.5%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias31.5%This article: 6.3%Hussein Ibish: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias6.3%This article: 17.7%Hussein Ibish: 7.5%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error17.7%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Hussein Ibish: 1.8%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias1.7%This article: 5.5%Hussein Ibish: 3.2%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.5%This article: 6.8%Hussein Ibish: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Hussein Ibish: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 1.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect1.0%This article: 1.9%Hussein Ibish: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias1.9%This article: 9.7%Hussein Ibish: 14.7%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem9.7%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 3.3%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.2%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority1.0%This article: 3.1%Hussein Ibish: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma3.1%This article: 4.2%Hussein Ibish: 1.1%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope4.2%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.3%Hussein Ibish: 8.6%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization15.3%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.3%Hussein Ibish: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon3.3%This article: 5.1%Hussein Ibish: 4.1%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion5.1%This article: 7.6%Hussein Ibish: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question7.6%This article: 23.6%Hussein Ibish: 8.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.6%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.5%Hussein Ibish: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.5%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division2.0%This article: 7.7%Hussein Ibish: 2.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal7.7%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.2%Hussein Ibish: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.2%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 5.1%Hussein Ibish: 1.8%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity5.1%This article: 1.9%Hussein Ibish: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading1.9%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 22.6%Hussein Ibish: 8.2%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote22.6%This article: 3.8%Hussein Ibish: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.8%This article: 43.2%Hussein Ibish: 55.3%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice43.2%This article: 4.6%Hussein Ibish: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination4.6%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 10.8%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hussein Ibish: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Hussein Ibish: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.3%

1021 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers9.1%attributed speech928writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageCNN • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageJared Kushner • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

CNN

100%flagged-word coverage
44 attributed words47% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%CNN: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-47.5 ptsWriter: 47.5%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-19.6 ptsWriter: 19.6%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.2 ptsWriter: 4.2%CNN: 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.