The Charlie Kirk Killing and America’s Forgotten History of Left-Wing Terror ⁠100%

By Coleman Hughes⁠55%

7/20/2026, 9:01:12 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Politically Right Leaning Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 71 hits. Analysis detected 485 faulty-reasoning hits from 71 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠100% (60 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 99.70% of the article peer group.

Noah Rothman is a senior writer at *National Review* and author of the new book *Blood & Progress*, which makes the case that left-wing political violence has a long and largely forgotten history in America. 
He joins Coleman Hughes to argue that the commonly held belief that political violence is largely a right-wing phenomenon is not just inaccurate but ac… 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 35.2%Coleman Hughes: 6.5%The FP: 5.8%Confirmation Bias35.2%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 49.3%Coleman Hughes: 18.3%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic49.3%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 3.0%The FP: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 2.1%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Coleman Hughes: 15.3%The FP: 9.5%Framing Effect100.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 3.0%The FP: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 8.7%The FP: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Coleman Hughes: 12.8%The FP: 10.8%Negativity Bias15.5%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 4.6%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 8.4%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 49.3%Coleman Hughes: 3.1%The FP: 1.1%Primacy Effect49.3%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 2.2%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 49.3%Coleman Hughes: 9.2%The FP: 3.2%Appeal to Authority49.3%This article: 35.2%Coleman Hughes: 4.4%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma35.2%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 8.7%The FP: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 35.2%Coleman Hughes: 19.6%The FP: 8.9%Hasty Generalization35.2%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 1.0%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 49.3%Coleman Hughes: 3.1%The FP: 1.5%Begging the Question49.3%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 2.5%The FP: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 4.2%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 9.9%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.5%Coleman Hughes: 3.9%The FP: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.5%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 4.2%The FP: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 100.0%Coleman Hughes: 25.4%The FP: 15.0%Biased Writer Voice100.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Coleman Hughes: 13.4%The FP: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias100.0%This article: 49.3%Coleman Hughes: 6.1%The FP: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…49.3%

71 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker35%attributed speech46writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageNoah Rothman • 25 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Noah Rothman

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+0.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Noah Rothman: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +0.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Noah Rothman: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -76.1 ptsWriter: 76.1%Noah Rothman: 0.0%0.0%

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.