Sarah's Latest Focus Group Almost Broke JVL's Brain ⁠60%

By Tim Miller⁠91% Sarah Longwell⁠91% Jonathan V. Last⁠50%

7/15/2026, 12:26:12 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Recency Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 44.1% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 350 faulty-reasoning hits from 102 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠60% (8,786 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.90% of the article peer group.

The whole gang is back together, for the last time until August. 
Tim, Sarah, and JVL discuss: 
- Two more killings by ICE officers. 
JVL asks whether we're getting numb to this. 
No one on this show is numb. 
- Trump's aborted plan to toll the Strait of Hormuz--and whether it was an act of war. 
- Sarah lets Todd Blanche (and Republican senators) have it. 
- After JVL's wifi goes bad, Tim and Sarah discuss Tim's interview with Pete Buttigieg, and why Tim is glad Josh Shapiro isn't wading into intra-Democratic turf wars. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 4.2%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.7%Tim Miller: 2.6%The Bulwark: 2.9%Availability Heuristic16.7%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 44.1%Tim Miller: 9.4%The Bulwark: 6.8%Framing Effect44.1%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 1.0%The Bulwark: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Tim Miller: 0.6%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias7.8%This article: 31.4%Tim Miller: 16.3%The Bulwark: 11.2%Negativity Bias31.4%This article: 6.9%Tim Miller: 0.5%The Bulwark: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.5%The Bulwark: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 44.1%Tim Miller: 7.8%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias44.1%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.4%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 2.7%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 39.2%Tim Miller: 1.7%The Bulwark: 1.5%Recency Bias39.2%This article: 11.8%Tim Miller: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect11.8%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Tim Miller: 4.1%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem9.8%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 8.1%The Bulwark: 8.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 27.5%Tim Miller: 1.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Red Herring27.5%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 27.5%Tim Miller: 6.1%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion27.5%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 3.1%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.3%The Bulwark: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 1.6%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.9%Tim Miller: 0.3%The Bulwark: 2.4%Anecdotal6.9%This article: 6.9%Tim Miller: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman6.9%This article: 16.7%Tim Miller: 0.6%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.7%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 28.4%Tim Miller: 22.9%The Bulwark: 15.3%Biased Writer Voice28.4%This article: 7.8%Tim Miller: 1.0%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination7.8%This article: 9.8%Tim Miller: 17.5%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Miller: 16.4%The Bulwark: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

102 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers18%attributed speech84writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJVL • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSarah • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sarah

100%flagged-word coverage
10 attributed words56% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sarah: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+77.4 ptsWriter: 22.6%Sarah: 100.0%100.0%

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.