Is It Time for Jews to Leave New York? ⁠83%

By Sophie Hurwitz⁠64%

6/24/2026, 9:57:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 40 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and In-Group Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 57.9% saturation with 291 hits. Analysis detected 2,360 faulty-reasoning hits from 503 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (3,737 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.40% of the article peer group.

New York City’s right-wingers, who evidently cannot handle losing elections, are dealing with their anger by once again attempting to fearmonger Jewish Americans into leaving New York, the most Jewish city in the country. 
Last night, allies of Mayor Zohran Mamdani swept the New York City Democratic primaries. 
Claire Valdez, Brad Lander, and Darializa Avila Chevalier—all of whom have condemned Israel’s genocide in Gaza—each won a congressional seat, consolidating socialist power in New York. 
The socialist New York Jews of generations past might perhaps have jumped for joy. 
But the Republican party figureheads of today would like Jews, specifically, to panic instead of celebrating. 
“To my beautiful Jewish friends in America. 
We love you. 
You are not alone. 
We are just as freaked out as you are and see with clear eyes exactly what is happening,” Meghan McCain wrote on X. 
As a beautiful Jew in America, I was not initially sure what she was talking about. 
Far-right activist Laura Loomer joined McCain in telling the one million Jews who call the five boroughs their home to go on ahead and pack their bags. 
Loomer, helpfully, made it clear that unconditional support for Israel is not and has never been about American Jewish safety: for her, it is about fighting the supposed “Islamic takeover of America. 
” 
Loomer is, of course, a crank. 
But more serious people, like Dan Goldman—the Congressman ousted by Brad Lander last night—have also invoked the specter of antisemitism in this week’s elections. 
Goldman, who is Jewish, lost by an absolute landslide to the also-very-Jewish Brad Lander, a man who named his children after a Jewish leader of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and a Jewish labor organizer. 
Nonetheless, Goldman reportedly accused Lander of using “dangerous antisemitic tropes” to win. 
It is not clear whether the trope in question was Lander’s attack of Goldman for taking AIPAC money, something Goldman did do while publicly disavowing AIPAC donations. 
Some serious thinkers have once again begun to wonder whether New York Jews might be better off living in Israel than in the United States. 
Joel Pollak of the California Post wasted no time casting the blame for antisemitism vaguely on “migration,” by which he presumably means “very scary Muslim mayor” and/or “very scary immigration. 
” Stephen Miller and Katie Miller joined in: “New York will now be run by foreign communists. 
” 
Jews, who not so long ago were being blamed for encouraging hatred of white people by supporting immigration, are now being told that in a city of immigrants they should be afraid of immigrants, because some of those immigrants might not like Israel. 
When Zohran Mamdani was elected earlier this year, the very same commentariat crowed for a Jewish exodus from Gotham. 
Such an exodus, by all accounts, did not happen then, and won’t happen now. 
Why would it? 
Antisemitism is real, but it isn’t caused by critics of Israel winning elections. 
And it isn’t solved by Jews fleeing New York. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.7%Sophie Hurwitz: 6.4%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias13.7%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.1%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 4.6%Mother Jones: 3.2%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 9.5%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic9.5%This article: 2.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias2.8%This article: 5.4%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.9%Mother Jones: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias5.4%This article: 1.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 9.5%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.6%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.5%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias2.8%This article: 9.3%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.5%Mother Jones: 1.7%Pessimism Bias9.3%This article: 48.5%Sophie Hurwitz: 13.0%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias48.5%This article: 3.2%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 19.1%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.8%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error19.1%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 22.1%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.6%Mother Jones: 1.1%In-Group Bias22.1%This article: 8.5%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.3%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias8.5%This article: 11.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 1.6%Halo Effect11.9%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.7%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.9%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias13.7%This article: 5.4%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.7%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 21.3%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.6%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem21.3%This article: 6.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.6%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man6.0%This article: 4.6%Sophie Hurwitz: 3.2%Mother Jones: 3.5%Appeal to Authority4.6%This article: 6.2%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.2%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma6.2%This article: 8.5%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.6%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope8.5%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 25.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 7.8%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization25.8%This article: 3.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring3.8%This article: 3.4%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.6%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon3.4%This article: 16.1%Sophie Hurwitz: 10.1%Mother Jones: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion16.1%This article: 7.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.6%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question7.0%This article: 7.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.8%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.5%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Burden of Proof9.5%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division6.8%This article: 11.1%Sophie Hurwitz: 5.5%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal11.1%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.3%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.7%Mother Jones: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.3%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 13.1%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy13.1%This article: 15.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.7%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote15.9%This article: 1.4%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.8%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection1.4%This article: 57.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 9.8%Mother Jones: 9.3%Biased Writer Voice57.9%This article: 15.5%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.7%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination15.5%This article: 5.2%Sophie Hurwitz: 4.9%Mother Jones: 4.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.2%This article: 21.3%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias21.3%This article: 2.6%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.6%

503 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.4%attributed speech466writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageMeghan McCain • 7 words • 100.0% coverageMeghan McCain • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMeghan McCain • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMeghan McCain • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Meghan McCain

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice+4.7 ptsWriter: 57.5%Meghan McCain: 62.2%62.2%Politically Right Leaning -23.0 ptsWriter: 23.0%Meghan McCain: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+18.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Meghan McCain: 18.9%18.9%Unattributed Quote+3.3 ptsWriter: 15.7%Meghan McCain: 18.9%18.9%Indoctrination-16.7 ptsWriter: 16.7%Meghan McCain: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Meghan McCain: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Meghan McCain: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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