How Did This Mistake Already Happen Again? ⁠61%

By Joseph Chalfant⁠97%

7/6/2026, 9:00:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Appeal to Emotion, and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.4% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 486 faulty-reasoning hits from 253 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠61% (8,717 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.20% of the article peer group.

Just days after NPR was publicly embarrassed for publishing a pre-written article falsely announcing the retirement of conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the Hill published an article detailing the life of Sen. 
Mitch McConnell after health concerns arose from a a lengthy hospital stay for the long-time Republican senator. 
The Hill publishes premature article titled “DO NOT USE: A lookback at Mitch McConnell’s time in the Senate” amid rumors over McConnell’s health 
Screenshot credit: @TNOQuoProQuid pic.twitter.com/HwY3mserLJ 
— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) July 6, 2026 
To make matters worse, the copy of the article remained live on Yahoo for an extended period past the removal of the article from the Hill’s website. 
The copy is still up on Yahoo News 
Link to article: https://t.co/SAPfCvshLX https://t.co/9lNOSoxYWz pic.twitter.com/PmRkQK9xJz 
— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) July 6, 2026 
Many took the opportunity to poke fun at the Hill and NPR for their lax editorial practices that made the errors possible. 
Published-too-early pre-writes are having a renaissance right now https://t.co/Bh4tSNXMhZ 
— Brad Johnson (@bradj_TX) July 7, 2026 
THEY USED https://t.co/JMmW7wbxqT 
— Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) July 7, 2026 
The question remains, which outlet will be the next to errantly “break” news that never happened? 
Editor's Note: It’s America’s 250th birthday! 
Help Townhall celebrate the greatest nation in history by honoring its past, defending its present, and preserving its future with reporting you can trust. 
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code AMERICA250 to receive 74% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 7.4%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.0%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.4%Joseph Chalfant: 5.0%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic15.4%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.7%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.5%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.1%Townhall: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 20.7%Townhall: 11.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.4%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.4%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 4.9%Townhall: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Joseph Chalfant: 2.1%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias6.3%This article: 32.4%Joseph Chalfant: 23.1%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias32.4%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.2%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.1%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 7.9%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 4.3%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 3.3%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.0%Townhall: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 19.8%Joseph Chalfant: 2.4%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias19.8%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 7.6%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.8%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 6.2%Townhall: 4.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 6.3%Joseph Chalfant: 3.0%Townhall: 1.9%False Dilemma6.3%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.3%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.3%Joseph Chalfant: 14.3%Townhall: 9.1%Hasty Generalization21.3%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.2%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.7%Joseph Chalfant: 1.7%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon8.7%This article: 20.2%Joseph Chalfant: 19.5%Townhall: 11.1%Appeal to Emotion20.2%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 3.3%Townhall: 2.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.0%Joseph Chalfant: 5.1%Townhall: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.4%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.4%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 3.6%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.3%Townhall: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.0%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.6%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.2%Joseph Chalfant: 3.5%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote1.2%This article: 1.2%Joseph Chalfant: 3.1%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection1.2%This article: 19.4%Joseph Chalfant: 29.1%Townhall: 16.1%Biased Writer Voice19.4%This article: 9.5%Joseph Chalfant: 6.6%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination9.5%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.4%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 25.6%Townhall: 13.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 17.4%Joseph Chalfant: 7.2%Townhall: 5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…17.4%

253 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers38%attributed speech158writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageThe Hill • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coveragePolitics & Poll Tracker 📡 • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coveragePolitics & Poll Tracker 📡 • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageBrad Johnson • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageMolly Jong-Fast • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageTownhall • 24 words • 100.0% coverageTownhall • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Townhall

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words40% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +96.2 ptsWriter: 3.8%Townhall: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+63.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Townhall: 63.2%63.2%Biased Writer Voice-31.0 ptsWriter: 31.0%Townhall: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.9 ptsWriter: 1.9%Townhall: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.9 ptsWriter: 1.9%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.