Townhall⁠84%

Ketanji Brown Jackson Hits the Front Page of Essence Magazine, and Check Out How They Describe Her ⁠97%

By Amy Curtis⁠89%

7/6/2026, 7:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 58.5% saturation with 148 hits. Analysis detected 1,319 faulty-reasoning hits from 253 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 95.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠97% (694 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 96.80% of the article peer group.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is the Left's darling. 
It doesn't matter that her jurisprudence is rooted in Internet memes or that she doesn't understand the oral arguments being made before the Court. 
She's a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist, and that's enough for them. 
Now, KBJ is on the cover of ESSENCE Magazine, and check out how they describe her. 
"The People's Champion." 
KBJ can't define woman, so how is she the 'people's champion'? 
Yeah, they're way off base on this one. 
They don't believe in the interpretation of the law. 
They believe in legislating from the bench, and KBJ herself said her job is to 'use her voice' while sitting on the Supreme Court. 
She is supposed to be a champion for the Constitution, as it's written and intended. 
It isn't, sadly. 
Making sure people don't understand how government works is the point. 
Imagine a Supreme Court packed with Justices like KBJ. 
We would be in serious trouble. 
But that's what the Democrats are promising to do if they regain power: pack the Supreme Court with people just like KBJ. 
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at Townhall, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical Left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve. 
Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. 
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 37.5%Amy Curtis: 8.6%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias37.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Amy Curtis: 3.8%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic3.6%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.5%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.1%Townhall: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Amy Curtis: 10.8%Townhall: 11.2%Framing Effect13.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.9%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.0%Townhall: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Amy Curtis: 2.8%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias4.7%This article: 45.1%Amy Curtis: 15.5%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias45.1%This article: 5.5%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 3.8%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Amy Curtis: 4.7%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias15.0%This article: 7.1%Amy Curtis: 6.0%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.2%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect15.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 32.4%Amy Curtis: 8.3%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem32.4%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 4.3%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.0%Amy Curtis: 4.2%Townhall: 4.4%Appeal to Authority15.0%This article: 13.0%Amy Curtis: 2.6%Townhall: 1.9%False Dilemma13.0%This article: 3.6%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope3.6%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.9%Amy Curtis: 16.6%Townhall: 9.1%Hasty Generalization22.9%This article: 13.0%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring13.0%This article: 5.5%Amy Curtis: 1.6%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon5.5%This article: 24.1%Amy Curtis: 9.9%Townhall: 11.1%Appeal to Emotion24.1%This article: 10.3%Amy Curtis: 2.9%Townhall: 2.2%Begging the Question10.3%This article: 4.3%Amy Curtis: 2.9%Townhall: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.3%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.5%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 36.8%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof36.8%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.7%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.0%Amy Curtis: 2.3%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 24.5%Amy Curtis: 4.4%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote24.5%This article: 10.7%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection10.7%This article: 58.5%Amy Curtis: 24.5%Townhall: 16.1%Biased Writer Voice58.5%This article: 32.8%Amy Curtis: 8.1%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination32.8%This article: 4.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.0%This article: 12.3%Amy Curtis: 22.0%Townhall: 13.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias12.3%This article: 32.0%Amy Curtis: 6.1%Townhall: 5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…32.0%

253 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker22%attributed speech197writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageTownhall • 28 words • 100.0% coverageTownhall • 14 words • 100.0% coverageTownhall • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Townhall

100%flagged-word coverage
56 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +87.3 ptsWriter: 12.7%Townhall: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+54.2 ptsWriter: 20.8%Townhall: 75.0%75.0%Biased Writer Voice-10.9 ptsWriter: 60.9%Townhall: 50.0%50.0%Unattributed Quote-31.5 ptsWriter: 31.5%Townhall: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -15.7 ptsWriter: 15.7%Townhall: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-13.7 ptsWriter: 13.7%Townhall: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Townhall: 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.