Watch: Trump’s Dystopia Takes Over the National Mall ⁠97%

By Jeremy Schulman⁠0%

7/2/2026, 1:14:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 97.2% saturation with 207 hits. Analysis detected 796 faulty-reasoning hits from 213 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 94.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠97% (806 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 96.30% of the article peer group.

"Loitering is not permitted in this area," an audio recording sternly warns, as uniformed National Guard troops patrol Washington's iconic, algae-plagued reflecting pool. 
"Please proceed to a designated location." 
Journalist Amanda Moore's dystopian video, shot last weekend just steps from the Lincoln Memorial, instantly went viral—a perfect 8-second encapsulation of American democracy under Donald Trump. 
Amanda has spent the past 18 months documenting the chaos and brutality of the administration's militarized takeovers and immigration raids in cities across the country. 
Her footage has been shocking, often horrifying. 
But it's never before been quite so absurd. 
(Well, maybe once.) 
In her latest video report for Mother Jones, Amanda takes us on a tour of the Trumpified National Mall as the nation attempts to celebrate its 250th birthday. 
Not far from the reflecting pool's nanobubblers and security theater, there's a very different scene: Trump's Great America State Fair. 
When Amanda visited this marquee anniversary event, she found a dearth of visitors, a shortage of napkins, and a decaying model of the triumphal arch the president wants to build across the Potomac. 
The symbolism here is about as subtle as a Jon McNaughton painting. 
If I hadn't seen Amanda's reporting, I never would have believed it was real. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 2.9%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.9%Jeremy Schulman: 6.0%Mother Jones: 3.3%Availability Heuristic23.9%This article: 12.2%Jeremy Schulman: 3.1%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic12.2%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Jeremy Schulman: 0.4%Mother Jones: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias1.4%This article: 49.3%Jeremy Schulman: 49.6%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect49.3%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Jeremy Schulman: 0.9%Mother Jones: 1.9%Pessimism Bias3.8%This article: 41.3%Jeremy Schulman: 37.9%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias41.3%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 6.8%Mother Jones: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Jeremy Schulman: 1.4%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 1.4%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 1.6%Mother Jones: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 9.4%Jeremy Schulman: 2.3%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma9.4%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 13.1%Jeremy Schulman: 3.3%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning13.1%This article: 31.5%Jeremy Schulman: 17.8%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization31.5%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.9%Jeremy Schulman: 11.5%Mother Jones: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion8.9%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.5%Jeremy Schulman: 16.3%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal15.5%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.4%Jeremy Schulman: 0.4%Mother Jones: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.4%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 6.6%Jeremy Schulman: 4.9%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity6.6%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.6%Jeremy Schulman: 6.8%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote13.6%This article: 13.6%Jeremy Schulman: 6.1%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection13.6%This article: 97.2%Jeremy Schulman: 59.9%Mother Jones: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice97.2%This article: 25.4%Jeremy Schulman: 6.3%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination25.4%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 29.9%Mother Jones: 4.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Schulman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

213 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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