Raw Story⁠93%

‘Scary’: Jim Acosta flags chilling detail in Trump’s ‘deranged dictator speech’ ⁠84%

By Alexander Willis⁠88%

7/17/2026, 1:00:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ad Hominem, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 31.4% saturation with 105 hits. Analysis detected 699 faulty-reasoning hits from 334 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (3,543 of 21,123 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.20% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump addressed the nation Thursday with a primetime speech largely about supposed election security shortcomings, but one overlooked remark – a mention of an alleged “plot” – carried what former CNN anchor Jim Acosta called on Friday "scary" implications. 
“It was another one of those deranged dictator speeches for Donald Trump over at the White House,” Acosta said in a video published Friday on his Substack . 
In the lead up to the address, the White House teased that it would coincide with the release of new evidence of election interference in the 2020 election. 
However, the new documents released by the Trump administration reportedly “did not support the president’s sweeping assertions.” 
What caught Acosta’s attention were Trump’s remarks regarding the media, which included attacks on NBC News and ABC News for not covering his address, along with an accusation that U.S. media outlets were “part of a plot” to “continue” voter fraud in the United States. 
“The thing that was scary about that speech is he was talking about going after journalists. 
He was talking about going out to the broadcast licenses for ABC and NBC for refusing to carry that speech,” Acosta said. 
“But this is the important thing to keep in mind. 
There was one person who did try to commit voter fraud in the 2020 election, and that is Donald Trump. 
He tried to overturn a free and fair election, and we have lots of evidence that he tried to do that.” 
Regarding the rest of Trump’s address, Acosta dismissed it as nothing more than familiar unsubstantiated claims about election fraud. 
“He brought out all of these crazy conspiracy theories about China and Venezuela, but one thing you did not hear from Donald Trump, throughout that speech, he did not present any evidence that votes were switched from Donald to Joe Biden,” Acosta said. 
“You know why? 
Because that evidence does not exist. 
It has never existed.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.8%Alexander Willis: 6.7%Rawstory: 7.7%Confirmation Bias16.8%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 7.1%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Alexander Willis: 2.6%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias9.3%This article: 31.4%Alexander Willis: 18.7%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect31.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%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: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 3.1%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 28.4%Alexander Willis: 27.6%Rawstory: 21.8%Negativity Bias28.4%This article: 6.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.5%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: 2.8%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 24.6%Alexander Willis: 3.8%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem24.6%This article: 12.9%Alexander Willis: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man12.9%This article: 6.3%Alexander Willis: 4.1%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority6.3%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.5%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.3%Alexander Willis: 8.0%Rawstory: 11.9%Hasty Generalization12.3%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.8%Alexander Willis: 11.2%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion4.8%This article: 9.0%Alexander Willis: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question9.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.5%Rawstory: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 6.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque6.0%This article: 11.4%Alexander Willis: 2.3%Rawstory: 1.5%Burden of Proof11.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 6.3%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 3.0%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: 5.1%Alexander Willis: 7.5%Rawstory: 5.4%Unattributed Quote5.1%This article: 3.3%Alexander Willis: 5.8%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection3.3%This article: 15.6%Alexander Willis: 13.4%Rawstory: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice15.6%This article: 3.0%Alexander Willis: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination3.0%This article: 3.3%Alexander Willis: 7.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

334 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker52%attributed speech161writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageJim Acosta • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageJim Acosta • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJim Acosta • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJim Acosta • 10 words • 100.0% coverageJim Acosta • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJim Acosta • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJim Acosta • 43 words • 0.0% coverageJim Acosta • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJim Acosta • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJim Acosta • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jim Acosta

98%flagged-word coverage
173 attributed words100% of attributed speech55% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-32.3 ptsWriter: 32.3%Jim Acosta: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-10.6 ptsWriter: 10.6%Jim Acosta: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%Jim Acosta: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%Jim Acosta: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+5.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jim Acosta: 5.8%5.8%

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.