George Conway Is Back—and Trump Gave Him PLENTY to Work With ⁠78%

By Sarah Longwell⁠92%

7/22/2026, 10:58:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 39.9% saturation with 61 hits. Analysis detected 239 faulty-reasoning hits from 153 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (4,501 of 20,498 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.00% of the article peer group.

Sarah Longwell welcomes George Conway back to The Illegal News to discuss Trump Media’s plan to sell Wall Street firms early access to Trump’s market-moving Truth Social posts. 
They also talk about DOJ subpoenas targeting New York Times reporters and their families, Trump’s Qatar jet, the newly activated Alien Terrorist Removal Court, and the Paramount–Warner merger. 
show notes: 
Watch, listen and leave a comment. 
The Illegal News with Sarah Longwell is available wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. 
Leave us a review and ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ so more people can find this important show from The Bulwark. 
Share 
Access to this show’s community comments and ad-free editions is available exclusively for Bulwark+ members here and on the Bulwark App—available now in the Apple and Google App stores. 
Bulwark+ members can also listen ad-free on your podcast player of choice—click SET UP here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.3%Sarah Longwell: 10.8%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias18.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.9%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.3%Sarah Longwell: 3.6%The Bulwark: 3.0%Availability Heuristic18.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.7%The Bulwark: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Sarah Longwell: 14.7%The Bulwark: 6.9%Framing Effect7.2%This article: 19.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.1%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion19.0%This article: 9.8%Sarah Longwell: 0.9%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.1%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.3%Sarah Longwell: 25.9%The Bulwark: 11.4%Negativity Bias18.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.6%The Bulwark: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.2%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.5%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.8%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Sarah Longwell: 1.1%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect7.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 9.0%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.9%The Bulwark: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.9%The Bulwark: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.4%The Bulwark: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.1%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 12.5%The Bulwark: 8.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 18.3%Sarah Longwell: 2.5%The Bulwark: 0.6%Red Herring18.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.3%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 12.9%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.4%The Bulwark: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.7%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.8%The Bulwark: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.4%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.9%The Bulwark: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 27.0%The Bulwark: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 7.3%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 14.5%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.3%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 39.9%Sarah Longwell: 28.5%The Bulwark: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…39.9%

153 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers47%attributed speech81writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSarah Longwell • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageBulwark+ • 29 words • 100.0% coverageBulwark+ • 15 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bulwark+

100%flagged-word coverage
44 attributed words61% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +79.0 ptsWriter: 21.0%Bulwark+: 100.0%100.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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