Trump says he sees shootings as a reflection of his impact ⁠59%

By Isaac Arnsdorf⁠0%

4/26/2026, 4:43:09 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Self-Serving Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 38.7% saturation with 41 hits. Analysis detected 235 faulty-reasoning hits from 106 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠59% (9,095 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.40% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump said Saturday that he views his repeated brushes with violence as a sign of his historic significance and is determined not to let the dangers affect him. 
Authorities have not identified a motive or target in the shooting at the Washington Hilton, where Trump and multiple Cabinet officials were attending the White House correspondents’ dinner Saturday evening. 
But interim D.C. police chief Jeffery Carroll said during a news conference that the suspect was running through a security checkpoint in the direction of the ballroom, where Trump was seated at the head table. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 38.7%Isaac Arnsdorf: 4.2%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias38.7%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.7%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 2.0%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 4.1%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 38.7%Isaac Arnsdorf: 3.2%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias38.7%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 16.2%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 28.3%Isaac Arnsdorf: 11.4%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias28.3%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.3%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 9.6%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 38.7%Isaac Arnsdorf: 6.4%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias38.7%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.5%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.5%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.7%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 2.8%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 2.6%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 3.5%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 3.2%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.6%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 38.7%Isaac Arnsdorf: 3.3%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization38.7%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 2.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 38.7%Isaac Arnsdorf: 5.3%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)38.7%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 1.9%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 3.2%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 11.0%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 1.3%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isaac Arnsdorf: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

106 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers72%attributed speech30writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Trump • 11 words • 0.0% coveragePresident Donald Trump • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageJeffery Carroll • 35 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words39% of attributed speech0% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.