Vox⁠50%

A tale of two Trump flip-flops ⁠52%

By Andrew Prokop⁠45%

7/15/2026, 3:45:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Fundamental Attribution Error, Negativity Bias, and Indoctrination, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 24.4% saturation with 99 hits. Analysis detected 1,002 faulty-reasoning hits from 406 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠52% (10,503 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.00% of the article peer group.

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. 
Subscribe here. 
Welcome to The Logoff: Remember the policy changes we wrote about in this newsletter on Monday and Tuesday? 
Neither lasted more than 24 hours — both fell victim to presidential posting. 
What happened? 
On Monday afternoon, the Logoff covered how President Donald Trump said he would charge a 20 percent fee to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. 
But he reversed course on that yesterday morning, posting on Truth Social that he’d “replace” the fee with trade and investment deals that Gulf nations would purportedly make in the US. 
Yesterday afternoon’s Logoff then covered how, after two recent deadly shootings, ICE had been ordered to temporarily stop making traffic stops nationwide. 
But this morning, Trump declared that traffic stops were back on, posting: “The Radical Left Dumocrats would like to see this done, but it won’t happen on my watch.” 
Why did Trump flip-flop? 
The Hormuz fee was a Trump whim that many of his own aides had deep logistical and political qualms about. 
For one, they believed the move could push gas prices higher. 
Secretary of State Marco Rubio had said just last month that “no country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway.” 
As Monday stretched on, Trump was deluged with lobbying from Gulf nations who rely on the strait — such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — and ultimately decided to back down. 
The ICE traffic stop pause followed the opposite trajectory. 
This was a decision made by administration officials without Trump’s knowledge — and when he watched press coverage and heard right-wing criticism of it, he was irate, per CNN. 
What’s the takeaway? 
The reversals show whose criticism and feedback Trump actually cares about. 
Wealthy Gulf leaders and the spectre of higher gas prices helped talk him down from his Hormuz fee. 
And on traffic stops, he ultimately cared less about tamping down national outrage over deadly shootings than he did about preserving his “tough on immigration” reputation and agenda. 
And with that, it’s time to log off… 
A 67-million-year old Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton sold at auction for a record $50.1 million yesterday to an anonymous bidder. 
Mystery bidder, if you’re reading this, can I stop by and see it? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.1%Andrew Prokop: 4.9%Vox: 4.5%Confirmation Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.5%Vox: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Andrew Prokop: 3.4%Vox: 3.0%Availability Heuristic13.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.7%Vox: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 10.8%Andrew Prokop: 2.0%Vox: 1.4%Hindsight Bias10.8%This article: 9.6%Andrew Prokop: 1.8%Vox: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias9.6%This article: 8.1%Andrew Prokop: 9.6%Vox: 5.9%Framing Effect8.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.8%Vox: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.5%Vox: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.3%Vox: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.6%Vox: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.3%Vox: 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.0%Andrew Prokop: 7.7%Vox: 6.7%Negativity Bias18.0%This article: 4.9%Andrew Prokop: 1.2%Vox: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias4.9%This article: 20.2%Andrew Prokop: 1.6%Vox: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error20.2%This article: 7.1%Andrew Prokop: 0.3%Vox: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.6%Vox: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.6%Vox: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.4%Vox: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.0%Vox: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.0%Vox: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.8%Andrew Prokop: 1.8%Vox: 1.3%Recency Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.3%Vox: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.1%Vox: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.0%Vox: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.7%Vox: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.9%Andrew Prokop: 2.1%Vox: 3.2%Appeal to Authority5.9%This article: 6.9%Andrew Prokop: 2.2%Vox: 2.0%False Dilemma6.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.0%Vox: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 7.1%Andrew Prokop: 0.1%Vox: 0.1%Circular Reasoning7.1%This article: 2.7%Andrew Prokop: 5.7%Vox: 6.2%Hasty Generalization2.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.5%Vox: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.9%Vox: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.1%Andrew Prokop: 3.5%Vox: 3.9%Appeal to Emotion7.1%This article: 4.4%Andrew Prokop: 1.1%Vox: 0.9%Begging the Question4.4%This article: 16.0%Andrew Prokop: 4.9%Vox: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.4%Vox: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.6%Vox: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.1%Vox: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.3%Vox: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.8%Andrew Prokop: 2.4%Vox: 2.2%Anecdotal10.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.2%Vox: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.6%Andrew Prokop: 1.5%Vox: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.0%Vox: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.2%Vox: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.0%Vox: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.1%Vox: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.2%Vox: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.1%Andrew Prokop: 1.3%Vox: 1.8%Unattributed Quote7.1%This article: 7.6%Andrew Prokop: 1.1%Vox: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection7.6%This article: 24.4%Andrew Prokop: 7.3%Vox: 8.8%Biased Writer Voice24.4%This article: 16.7%Andrew Prokop: 0.8%Vox: 1.6%Indoctrination16.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.8%Vox: 2.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.4%Vox: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Andrew Prokop: 0.7%Vox: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.3%

406 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers20%attributed speech324writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMarco Rubio • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageCNN • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

CNN

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words35% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+88.0 ptsWriter: 12.0%CNN: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+78.4 ptsWriter: 21.6%CNN: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -14.2 ptsWriter: 14.2%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%CNN: 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.