MS NOW⁠95%

Trump scrambles to exaggerate pitiful crowd size at Great American State Fair event ⁠78%

By Steve Benen⁠95%

6/26/2026, 9:22:14 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Biased Writer Voice, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 55.8% saturation with 288 hits. Analysis detected 1,613 faulty-reasoning hits from 516 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (4,925 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.50% of the article peer group.

Ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday, the White House organized something it described as the Great American State Fair, which would help kick off the festivities in the nation’s capital. 
Even before Wednesday’s launch, however, the event started to unravel. 
Not only did musical acts withdraw from the gathering, but roughly a fifth of the nation’s states decided not to send official delegations or spend public money on participating in the fair. 
When the gathering got underway on Wednesday night, things managed to get even worse. 
Not only did Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy mock the musicians who chose not to perform — the former Fox News host labeled the artists “libtards,” an offensive term that combines the words “liberal” and “retard” — but he was soon followed by Donald Trump, who delivered a campaign-style speech and made much of the gathering a celebration of himself, not the country. 
In case that weren’t quite enough, turnout for the event was — how do I put this gently — underwhelming. 
An NBC News report noted, “Roughly half of those in Wednesday’s crowd of more than 1,000 wore Trump’s slogans or likeness on their clothes. 
For them, America’s 250th birthday was secondary to an opportunity to see the president.” 
The Washington Post ran a related report that noted, in reference to attendees, “The crowd thinly covered an area about the length of the National Museum of American History, smaller than some summer outdoor movie screenings.” 
The New Republic added, “Dozens of attendees Wednesday were seen flocking toward the exits in the middle of Trump’s address, which was meant to kick-start the two-week event.” 
Take a wild guess who did not appreciate the reporting. 
On Thursday afternoon, the day after the poorly attended event, the president wrote on his social media platform: 
The Crowd was incredible last night, packed to the brim — At least 45,000 people were there, with a huge Television and online audience. 
I wish we were able to have an even larger area, which we will be able to do on July 4th when I’ll be speaking again. 
The airplane flyovers and music were fantastic. 
Everybody stayed right until the end of my Speech because they loved hearing about a truly successful America. 
Five hours later, either trying to convince the public or himself, he published a follow-up item, which read in part, “Last night’s Rally was packed — 45,000 people.” 
An NBC News report described the president’s claim as “false,” adding that the actual total was “nowhere near 45,000 people.” 
The fact that Trump appears to have lied about a crowd size is pitiful but predictable. 
He has, after all, been doing this since literally the first day of his first term. 
But stepping back, it’s also worth appreciating the fact that the incumbent president is doing something inherently difficult: screwing up simple ceremonial duties. 
We’re talking about a feel-good semiquincentennial celebration that should, at least in theory, easily bring Americans together. 
It’s a straightforward exercise that’s proving too difficult for Trump. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.2%Steve Benen: 10.5%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Steve Benen: 3.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic10.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.5%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Steve Benen: 23.0%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect5.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.3%Steve Benen: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias8.3%This article: 16.9%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias16.9%This article: 55.8%Steve Benen: 29.0%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias55.8%This article: 4.8%Steve Benen: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias4.8%This article: 9.5%Steve Benen: 4.7%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error9.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.4%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.2%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 4.4%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Steve Benen: 7.8%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem12.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 6.3%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.4%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma5.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.2%Steve Benen: 8.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization19.2%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.0%Steve Benen: 11.3%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion14.0%This article: 13.4%Steve Benen: 3.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question13.4%This article: 6.6%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.6%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.8%Steve Benen: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal12.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.9%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.9%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground3.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 7.9%Steve Benen: 2.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy7.9%This article: 26.7%Steve Benen: 3.8%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote26.7%This article: 20.2%Steve Benen: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection20.2%This article: 26.7%Steve Benen: 22.9%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice26.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 8.6%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

516 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers35%attributed speech333writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 62 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageNBC News • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWashington Post • 36 words • 100.0% coverageThe New Republic • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 24 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 26 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageNBC News • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The New Republic

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words15% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+91.6 ptsWriter: 8.4%The New Republic: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+91.0 ptsWriter: 9.0%The New Republic: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-36.0 ptsWriter: 36.0%The New Republic: 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.