Breitbart82%

1619 Project’s Nikole Hannah-Jones: ‘Entire Existence of the United States’ Is a ‘Crime’ 85%

By Mariane Angela68%

7/3/2026, 7:36:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Framing Effect, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 46.9% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 961 faulty-reasoning hits from 256 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76.6% and a BS Rank of 85% (3,320 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.30% of the article peer group.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the creator of the New York Times‘ now-debunked “1619 Project,” said that paying reparations for slavery would amount to admitting that “the entire existence of the United States” is a crime. 
Speaking with The Meteor about reparations and American history, Hannah-Jones did not hold back and said many Americans still flat-out refuse to face the reality of slavery. 
To prove her point, she pointed to the recent culture wars, citing backlash over Juneteenth, the 1619 Project, critical race theory, and restrictions on how history is taught in schools. 
“Paying reparations is an admission of the crime. 
But it’s not an admission of the crime of a handful of bad apples or a few years of bad policy. 
It is the crime of the entire existence of the United States,” Hannah-Jones said. 
Hannah-Jones argued that the nation’s history of slavery is so deeply embedded in the United States that it cannot simply be erased, saying that doing so would require removing “all the monuments on the Mall in Washington.” 
“And so you can have reconciliation when you don’t have to look every day at the people that you visited these crimes upon. 
My God. 
But we’re right here in the country that did this to our ancestors,” Hannah-Jones added. 
“Slavery predates the founding of our country by 150 years. 
You could never knock down all the statues to enslavers, or you have to remove all the monuments on the Mall in Washington.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.1%Mariane Angela: 5.7%Breitbart: 4.5%Confirmation Bias21.1%This article: 3.9%Mariane Angela: 0.4%Breitbart: 0.6%Anchoring Bias3.9%This article: 26.2%Mariane Angela: 4.3%Breitbart: 3.9%Availability Heuristic26.2%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.8%Breitbart: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.7%Breitbart: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 1.9%Breitbart: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 25.8%Mariane Angela: 13.9%Breitbart: 11.8%Framing Effect25.8%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.9%Breitbart: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.4%Breitbart: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 2.3%Breitbart: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%Mariane Angela: 1.3%Breitbart: 1.7%Pessimism Bias14.5%This article: 46.9%Mariane Angela: 9.6%Breitbart: 9.8%Negativity Bias46.9%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 3.8%Breitbart: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 1.2%Breitbart: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.7%Breitbart: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Mariane Angela: 6.7%Breitbart: 4.8%In-Group Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 2.2%Breitbart: 2.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.7%Breitbart: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.5%Breitbart: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 1.4%Breitbart: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.7%Breitbart: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 2.6%Breitbart: 2.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.4%Breitbart: 1.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.8%Mariane Angela: 4.3%Breitbart: 4.3%Appeal to Authority16.8%This article: 17.2%Mariane Angela: 3.3%Breitbart: 2.5%False Dilemma17.2%This article: 14.5%Mariane Angela: 2.7%Breitbart: 1.4%Slippery Slope14.5%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.5%Mariane Angela: 8.7%Breitbart: 8.0%Hasty Generalization19.5%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.8%Breitbart: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 1.4%Breitbart: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.7%Mariane Angela: 8.8%Breitbart: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion20.7%This article: 3.1%Mariane Angela: 1.9%Breitbart: 1.8%Begging the Question3.1%This article: 20.7%Mariane Angela: 3.7%Breitbart: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)20.7%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.1%Breitbart: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 1.0%Breitbart: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 14.5%Mariane Angela: 0.2%Breitbart: 0.2%Composition/Division14.5%This article: 11.7%Mariane Angela: 2.3%Breitbart: 2.5%Anecdotal11.7%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.5%Breitbart: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 25.0%Mariane Angela: 2.1%Breitbart: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)25.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.2%Breitbart: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.2%Breitbart: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.5%Mariane Angela: 4.0%Breitbart: 2.8%Unattributed Quote10.5%This article: 19.9%Mariane Angela: 2.5%Breitbart: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection19.9%This article: 15.6%Mariane Angela: 3.9%Breitbart: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice15.6%This article: 8.6%Mariane Angela: 1.4%Breitbart: 2.0%Indoctrination8.6%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.5%Breitbart: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.9%Mariane Angela: 3.4%Breitbart: 7.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Mariane Angela: 0.3%Breitbart: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

256 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker83%attributed speech43writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageNikole Hannah-Jones • 33 words • 100.0% coverageNikole Hannah-Jones • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageNikole Hannah-Jones • 8 words • 100.0% coverageNikole Hannah-Jones • 21 words • 0.0% coverageNikole Hannah-Jones • 14 words • 100.0% coverageNikole Hannah-Jones • 37 words • 0.0% coverageNikole Hannah-Jones • 23 words • 0.0% coverageNikole Hannah-Jones • 2 words • 0.0% coverageNikole Hannah-Jones • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNikole Hannah-Jones • 10 words • 0.0% coverageNikole Hannah-Jones • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nikole Hannah-Jones

100%flagged-word coverage
213 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-96.2 ptsWriter: 100.0%Nikole Hannah-Jones: 3.8%3.8%Biased Writer Voice-17.6 ptsWriter: 30.2%Nikole Hannah-Jones: 12.7%12.7%Politically Right Leaning +15.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nikole Hannah-Jones: 15.5%15.5%Unattributed Quote+12.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nikole Hannah-Jones: 12.7%12.7%Indoctrination+10.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nikole Hannah-Jones: 10.3%10.3%

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.