NATO's Annual Circus Comes to Turkey ⁠16%

By Eric S. Edelman⁠25%

7/13/2026, 1:30:21 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.4% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 292 faulty-reasoning hits from 210 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠16% (17,781 of 21,164 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.00% of the article peer group.

Eric and Eliot catch up for the first time in a month after returning from overseas. 
They break down the latest jackassery, from Graham Platner’s campaign implosion to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan gifting revolvers and live, gold-plated ammunition to the heads of state at the recent NATO summit. 
They assess the NATO summit more broadly and note the caveats to Trump’s promise to provide Ukraine a license to produce Patriot missile defense interceptors. 
Eric unpacks his recent Bulwark piece on the conspiracy of silence at the gathering related to Turkey’s democratic backsliding. 
They also discuss recent investigations into China’s assistance to Russia’s war effort, the state of the “ceasefire” with Iran, and Rahm Emanuel’s speech in Tel Aviv. 
Finally, they trade observations from their travels to France and Eastern Europe. 
Eliot’s latest in the Atlantic (gift link): 
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/07/america-france-enduring-relationship/687844/? 
gift=KGDC3VdV8jaCufvP3bRsPg9Zn56KAT0A_Vk94nJcGVU&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share 
Eric’s latest in the Bulwark: 
Nate Swanson on Iran overplaying its hand: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/iran-won-war-may-lose-peace 
Howard Altman on the problems with the Ukraine Patriot licensing deal: https://www.twz.com/land/ukraine-built-patriot-missiles-wont-be-defending-the-countrys-skies-anytime-soon 
Michael Weiss, Roman Dobrokhotov, and Christo Grozev on China and Russia’s targeting of Starlink: https://theins.press/en/inv/294635 
Leave a comment 
Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. 
Read more 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.0%Eric S. Edelman: 2.7%The Bulwark: 5.7%Confirmation Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 2.7%The Bulwark: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 1.8%The Bulwark: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 30.0%Eric S. Edelman: 13.7%The Bulwark: 6.9%Framing Effect30.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 2.7%The Bulwark: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Eric S. Edelman: 0.6%The Bulwark: 2.3%Pessimism Bias3.8%This article: 32.4%Eric S. Edelman: 16.5%The Bulwark: 11.4%Negativity Bias32.4%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.9%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 2.2%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.4%Eric S. Edelman: 1.9%The Bulwark: 1.6%Recency Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 4.5%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 3.7%The Bulwark: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 2.7%The Bulwark: 8.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.0%Eric S. Edelman: 1.4%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion9.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 3.3%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.7%Eric S. Edelman: 0.9%The Bulwark: 2.2%Anecdotal5.7%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 30.5%Eric S. Edelman: 14.6%The Bulwark: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice30.5%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 4.3%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Eric S. Edelman: 4.0%The Bulwark: 4.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.2%

210 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers41%attributed speech123writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageEric • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageEliot • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageEric • 5 words • 100.0% coverageNate Swanson • 8 words • 100.0% coverageHoward Altman • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Weiss • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageShield of the Republic • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Eric

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words28% of attributed speech62% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Biased Writer Voice+49.1 ptsWriter: 30.1%Eric: 79.2%79.2%Attempt to Sell a Product +20.0 ptsWriter: 0.8%Eric: 20.8%20.8%

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.