MS NOW⁠95%

Opinion | Far-right appeals court hands Trump a win in his segregation-enabling crusade ⁠85%

By Ja'han Jones⁠97%

7/15/2026, 10:20:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 76.1% saturation with 264 hits. Analysis detected 1,390 faulty-reasoning hits from 347 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠85% (3,329 of 21,175 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.30% of the article peer group.

The MAGA movement is touting yet another development that stands to enable more racial segregation in the United States. 
The president has falsely — and revealingly — complained that the Civil Rights Act was harmful to white people. 
And true to form, he has overseen a regime that has helped usher in a Jim Crow resurgence. 
I’ve written on numerous occasions about Donald Trump’s administration taking steps to roll back desegregation measures. 
That trend has included a push by the Justice Department to target consent decrees that force school systems to comply with desegregation obligations. 
Trump officials have provided no evidence showing that the places with consent decrees have ended segregation, and many parents from these areas have said the decrees are still needed. 
Several of these killed decrees have occurred with the blessing of Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who has sought to roll back the decrees using “joint stipulated dismissals,” which don’t require proof that segregation has been rooted out. 
That brings us to Tuesday, when the ultraconservative 5th U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals decided it would uphold the Trump administration’s lifting of a consent decree for schools in Louisiana’s Concordia Parish — an order that originated with a lawsuit in 1965, when segregation and the Ku Klux Klan reigned supreme in the region. 
It’s certainly telling that the Louisiana attorney general’s statement in response to the court’s decision effectively mirrored the “states’ rights” arguments that white supremacists have used throughout history. 
In 1981, as an adviser to Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater was infamously quoted explaining the art of racist dog whistling. 
By 1968, he said, politicians couldn’t say the N-word, because “that hurts you, backfires. 
So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff.” 
And that’s proper context for Murrill’s response to Tuesday’s ruling. 
“The good people of Concordia Parish elected their School Board to govern their schools — not unelected federal judges,” she said, adding that the decision “puts that authority back where it belongs.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.4%Ja'han Jones: 18.2%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias16.4%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Ja'han Jones: 5.1%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic10.4%This article: 14.7%Ja'han Jones: 1.3%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic14.7%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 25.4%Ja'han Jones: 34.4%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect25.4%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.3%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 2.4%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 65.7%Ja'han Jones: 36.3%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias65.7%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Ja'han Jones: 3.8%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error11.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 7.5%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 8.6%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 4.2%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Ja'han Jones: 2.5%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 8.6%Ja'han Jones: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 9.2%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 2.4%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.4%Ja'han Jones: 7.2%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority10.4%This article: 9.2%Ja'han Jones: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma9.2%This article: 11.0%Ja'han Jones: 2.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope11.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 15.6%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 2.2%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 30.3%Ja'han Jones: 18.0%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion30.3%This article: 8.4%Ja'han Jones: 4.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question8.4%This article: 5.2%Ja'han Jones: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.2%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.5%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 13.8%Ja'han Jones: 2.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof13.8%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.4%Ja'han Jones: 2.7%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal12.4%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.0%Ja'han Jones: 2.8%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 8.1%Ja'han Jones: 6.4%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy8.1%This article: 13.3%Ja'han Jones: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote13.3%This article: 15.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection15.0%This article: 76.1%Ja'han Jones: 31.9%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice76.1%This article: 2.9%Ja'han Jones: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 9.2%Ja'han Jones: 20.4%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias9.2%This article: 5.5%Ja'han Jones: 1.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

347 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers17%attributed speech287writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageLee Atwater • 14 words • 100.0% coverageLee Atwater • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageLiz Murrill • 32 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Liz Murrill

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words53% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Liz Murrill: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-92.0 ptsWriter: 92.0%Liz Murrill: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-13.2 ptsWriter: 13.2%Liz Murrill: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-11.1 ptsWriter: 11.1%Liz Murrill: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Liz Murrill: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Liz Murrill: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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