FBI interviews election workers in a swing state amid Trump’s false 2020 claims ⁠66%

By Patrick Marley⁠0%

5/29/2026, 10:00:01 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Recency Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 73.9% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 192 faulty-reasoning hits from 69 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠66% (7,237 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.80% of the article peer group.

MADISON, Wis. — The FBI in recent weeks has interviewed current and former election officials about the 2020 election in Milwaukee, ramping up wide-ranging reviews of voting in the swing states that President Donald Trump lost that year. 
An election worker carries ballot papers at Baird Center in Milwaukee during the 2024 presidential election. 
(Vincent Alban/Reuters) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.8%Patrick Marley: 1.3%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias18.8%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 3.0%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.7%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 73.9%Patrick Marley: 23.3%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect73.9%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.1%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.2%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.5%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 4.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Patrick Marley: 17.6%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias18.8%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.7%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 3.2%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.8%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.9%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 55.1%Patrick Marley: 3.2%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias55.1%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 2.0%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.3%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.7%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 7.8%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 4.1%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 18.8%Patrick Marley: 1.2%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question18.8%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.8%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.8%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.7%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 3.3%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 3.5%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 2.1%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 18.8%Patrick Marley: 14.4%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice18.8%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 7.6%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 73.9%Patrick Marley: 1.6%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias73.9%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

69 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.9%attributed speech67writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageReuters • 2 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Reuters

0%flagged-word coverage
2 attributed words100% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Politically Right Leaning -76.1 ptsWriter: 76.1%Reuters: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-19.4 ptsWriter: 19.4%Reuters: 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.