Townhall⁠85%

Two U.S. Service Members Killed, One Missing After Iranian Missile and Drone Attack in Jordan ⁠57%

By Scott McClallen⁠26%

7/18/2026, 2:15:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 64.6% saturation with 62 hits. Analysis detected 264 faulty-reasoning hits from 96 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠57% (8,867 of 20,518 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.80% of the article peer group.

Two U.S. service members have been killed in action in Jordan by Iranian missiles on Friday. 
Another service member is missing, and four have been injured, according to U.S. 
Central Command. 
CENTCOM is withholding additional information until 24 hours after the families have been notified. 
Iran and the U.S. have suspended the memorandum of understanding that sought peace about one month after it was signed. 
Iran kept attacking ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, so the U.S. attacked Iranian infrastructure. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 33.3%Scott McClallen: 2.2%Townhall: 5.2%Confirmation Bias33.3%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.5%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.7%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 20.8%Scott McClallen: 0.4%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias20.8%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.1%Townhall: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Scott McClallen: 7.3%Townhall: 11.4%Framing Effect13.5%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 14.6%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.9%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 64.6%Scott McClallen: 8.3%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias64.6%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 2.0%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.9%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 3.0%Townhall: 4.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 16.7%Scott McClallen: 0.9%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.5%Townhall: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.5%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.3%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.6%Townhall: 5.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.4%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 30.2%Scott McClallen: 4.3%Townhall: 4.5%Appeal to Authority30.2%This article: 16.7%Scott McClallen: 0.7%Townhall: 2.0%False Dilemma16.7%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.5%Townhall: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 2.1%Townhall: 9.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.6%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 10.2%Townhall: 11.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.0%Townhall: 2.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 37.5%Scott McClallen: 1.5%Townhall: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)37.5%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.7%Townhall: 1.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.7%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.5%Scott McClallen: 1.9%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote13.5%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 3.2%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.5%Scott McClallen: 5.3%Townhall: 16.3%Biased Writer Voice13.5%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 4.0%Townhall: 5.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 5.5%Townhall: 14.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 3.6%Townhall: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

96 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker15%attributed speech82writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageCENTCOM • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

CENTCOM

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words100% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-15.9 ptsWriter: 15.9%CENTCOM: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-15.9 ptsWriter: 15.9%CENTCOM: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.