Inside the chaotic correspondents’ dinner shooting: ‘Get down, get down!’ ⁠72%

By Dan Diamond⁠0% Cat Zakrzewski⁠0% Emily Davies⁠0% Maegan Vazquez⁠0%

4/26/2026, 4:50:30 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Representativeness Heuristic, Status Quo Bias, and Primacy Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 44.2% saturation with 38 hits. Analysis detected 189 faulty-reasoning hits from 86 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠72% (6,155 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.90% of the article peer group.

Plates clanged, glasses clinked, and at the front of the room sat President Donald Trump, making his long-awaited return to the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on Saturday. 
It was just after 8:30 p.m., in the basement of the Washington Hilton. 
The president was on stage, locked in conversation with CBS reporter Weijia Jiang; spread out in front of them were thousands of attendees, seated at more than 250 tables, as waiters cleared away their salads. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 5.7%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Dan Diamond: 8.6%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic11.6%This article: 40.7%Dan Diamond: 1.5%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic40.7%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.8%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Dan Diamond: 25.0%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect11.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 32.6%Dan Diamond: 2.2%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias32.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 1.1%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Dan Diamond: 26.1%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 2.4%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 32.6%Dan Diamond: 4.4%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect32.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 8.3%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 7.8%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.6%Dan Diamond: 0.4%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion11.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 2.1%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 2.7%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 5.5%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.6%Dan Diamond: 10.4%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote11.6%This article: 11.6%Dan Diamond: 4.5%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection11.6%This article: 44.2%Dan Diamond: 34.5%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice44.2%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.8%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 5.7%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

86 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker41%attributed speech51writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coveragePresident Donald Trump • 35 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words100% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice-74.5 ptsWriter: 74.5%President Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-19.6 ptsWriter: 19.6%President Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-19.6 ptsWriter: 19.6%President Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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