Kennedy Center board to fight order to remove Trump’s name as deadline looms ⁠84%

By Jonathan Edwards⁠0%

6/11/2026, 10:58:49 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Burden of Proof, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 98 hits. Analysis detected 459 faulty-reasoning hits from 98 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (3,585 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.60% of the article peer group.

The Kennedy Center’s board plans to fight a federal judge’s order to remove President Donald Trump’s name from the performing arts center. 
The center’s trustees on Thursday voted to seek a last-minute<b> </b>stay of U.S. 
District Judge Christopher Cooper’s directive to take Trump’s name off the center’s exterior by Friday as they appeal his ruling that renaming the center was illegal,<b> </b>according to a meeting attendee and someone briefed by a meeting attendee, who both spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 6.6%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 51.0%Jonathan Edwards: 4.5%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic51.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Jonathan Edwards: 24.6%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect100.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 86.7%Jonathan Edwards: 39.3%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias86.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 13.3%Jonathan Edwards: 1.2%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect13.3%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 9.0%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 4.6%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 2.1%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 51.0%Jonathan Edwards: 4.5%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof51.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 51.0%Jonathan Edwards: 4.5%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal51.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.3%Jonathan Edwards: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.3%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 51.0%Jonathan Edwards: 23.1%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote51.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.7%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 51.0%Jonathan Edwards: 30.6%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice51.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 8.8%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

98 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.