The Second Iran War? ⁠79%

By Jonathan V. Last⁠50%

7/24/2026, 9:06:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, False Dilemma, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 56.4% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 236 faulty-reasoning hits from 94 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠79% (4,597 of 21,869 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.00% of the article peer group.

Big show today: It’s the dawn of Streamer JVL? 
Plus: Some questions for Tom Homan about shooting January 6 insurrectionists; Haley Stevens and authenticity; and the Mitch McConnell conspiracy theory. 
Also, a conversation about raising good men. 
But the big topic is the Department of Defense suddenly removing the names of four dead soldiers from the Iran war casualty list because they were killed after Trump declared a ceasefire in April—because there are now apparently two distinct Iran wars. 
Even though neither of them is, for legal purposes, a “war.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 6.0%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 4.8%The Bulwark: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.5%The Bulwark: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 1.8%The Bulwark: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 54.3%Jonathan V. Last: 11.3%The Bulwark: 6.8%Framing Effect54.3%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 2.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 1.5%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 3.0%The Bulwark: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 4.1%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 56.4%Jonathan V. Last: 11.0%The Bulwark: 11.2%Negativity Bias56.4%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 1.8%The Bulwark: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 8.6%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 3.1%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 2.3%The Bulwark: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 1.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 1.2%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.6%The Bulwark: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 44.7%Jonathan V. Last: 2.0%The Bulwark: 2.2%False Dilemma44.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 1.4%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 9.8%The Bulwark: 8.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 1.6%The Bulwark: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 8.6%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 11.7%Jonathan V. Last: 2.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question11.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 3.1%The Bulwark: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.9%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 7.6%The Bulwark: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 44.7%Jonathan V. Last: 4.7%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)44.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 2.4%The Bulwark: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 1.8%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 22.3%Jonathan V. Last: 17.2%The Bulwark: 15.3%Biased Writer Voice22.3%This article: 7.4%Jonathan V. Last: 2.2%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination7.4%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 5.1%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Jonathan V. Last: 11.1%The Bulwark: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.6%

94 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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