Raw Story⁠93%

Surreal moment as Trump caught watching himself on live TV – and ignoring Fox News’ pleas ⁠29%

By Alexander Willis⁠88%

7/4/2026, 7:58:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 35.8% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 448 faulty-reasoning hits from 265 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠29% (15,736 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 71.90% of the article peer group.

A surreal moment unfolded on Fox News Saturday when a panel of hosts spent roughly a minute begging President Donald Trump to wave – only for cameras to catch him standing near-motionless, apparently fixated on the same broadcast playing on a television in front of him. 
Recording from the National Mall in Washington, D.C., the Fox News panel featured the network’s most popular figures, from Sean Hannity to Laura Ingraham. 
Fox News soon cut to a live shot of Trump, who could be seen indoors through a window watching the same Fox News broadcast. 
Panelists expressed excitement when they thought they caught a glimpse of Trump waving. 
“Hey, he's waving!” 
exclaimed Bret Baier. 
“Oh, the president waved?” 
asked Harris Faulkner. 
“I think we just got a wave – I'm going to say it happened!” 
Baier said. 
The entire panel immediately started calling on Trump to wave as the network’s feed switched back to the live shot of Trump watching the Fox News broadcast. 
“We see you, hi Mr. 
President!” 
Faulkner said. 
“See if he turns around for us!” 
shouted Brian Kilmeade. 
The broadcast Trump could be seen watching was delayed by around 50 seconds. 
Once it caught up to the moment the entire panel started pleading with Trump to wave, Trump – whose gaze appeared fixed on the television – stood near-motionless without turning around or waving. 
“We're kind of waiting for the president to wave, but that's okay,” Baier conceded as Fox News cut to a commercial break. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 31.3%Alexander Willis: 6.9%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias31.3%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Alexander Willis: 7.3%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic4.9%This article: 9.1%Alexander Willis: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic9.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Alexander Willis: 2.6%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias5.3%This article: 6.0%Alexander Willis: 18.2%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect6.0%This article: 8.3%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion8.3%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 3.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.4%Alexander Willis: 28.1%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias17.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 12.5%Alexander Willis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error12.5%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.6%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 3.7%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 4.3%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.6%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.3%Alexander Willis: 8.9%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization5.3%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 10.2%Alexander Willis: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon10.2%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 10.9%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.7%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.9%Alexander Willis: 6.7%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal4.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.8%Alexander Willis: 8.1%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote9.8%This article: 8.3%Alexander Willis: 5.8%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection8.3%This article: 35.8%Alexander Willis: 13.1%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice35.8%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 7.0%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

265 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers13%attributed speech230writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageBret Baier • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageHarris Faulkner • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageBret Baier • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageHarris Faulkner • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageBrian Kilmeade • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageBret Baier • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bret Baier

81%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words77% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-41.3 ptsWriter: 41.3%Bret Baier: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-11.3 ptsWriter: 11.3%Bret Baier: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%Bret Baier: 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.