Raw Story⁠93%

Panic at White House over Trump's July 4th plans: 'Who thought this was a good idea?' ⁠91%

By Tom Boggioni⁠86%

7/1/2026, 4:44:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Unattributed Quote, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 50.8% saturation with 167 hits. Analysis detected 1,181 faulty-reasoning hits from 329 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (1,979 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.00% of the article peer group.

Fresh off the embarrassment of a sparse crowd at last week's Great American Start Fair rally on the National Mall, Trump has now trained his focus on July Fourth — an event he's hyped as the "most unforgettable birthday party any country has ever seen." 
But behind closed White House doors, officials are quietly freaking out that nobody will show up. 
According to CNN, the lackluster attendance at Trump's previous speech infuriated the president, sparking genuine fears among his staff that Independence Day will be an even more visible flop. 
Triple-digit heat, tightened security, and a schedule stretching well into Saturday night aren't exactly drawing cards. 
"I do not understand why we are doing this so late," one Trump insider told CNN while admitting to an ongoing scramble to fix the timing. 
"I'm really not sure who thought this was a good idea." 
To salvage the optics of a possible repeat from last week at the opening rally, organizers have implemented a ticketing system for the viewing section directly in front of the stage but, CNN is reporting, "... the tickets are free, and another official familiar with the event noted that there is likely to be huge swaths of people who sign up to secure a spot but ultimately don’t show." 
Unlike past Independence Day celebrations, attendees won't be allowed to bring coolers onto the mall during what's forecast to be a brutal 100-degree heat wave, the report notes. 
The massive fireworks display — which organizers are banking will set a new Guinness World Record—won't even begin until nearly midnight. 
The president last week implored fans to show up and also lowered expectations, telling rally attendees, "Your favorite president will be speaking. 
So please show up because if we have two empty seats, you know what's going to happen? 
The fake news is going to say, 'He didn't fill out the arena.'" 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.0%Tom Boggioni: 4.8%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 29.8%Tom Boggioni: 6.8%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic29.8%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.7%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 32.5%Tom Boggioni: 20.8%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect32.5%This article: 5.2%Tom Boggioni: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion5.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Tom Boggioni: 5.4%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias11.2%This article: 35.3%Tom Boggioni: 28.2%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias35.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 3.9%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 1.2%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 1.2%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 22.5%Tom Boggioni: 1.9%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias22.5%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 7.9%Tom Boggioni: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 2.3%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 4.8%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 6.4%Tom Boggioni: 1.8%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma6.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 48.0%Tom Boggioni: 10.5%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization48.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.0%Tom Boggioni: 8.5%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion10.0%This article: 4.0%Tom Boggioni: 1.2%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 8.8%Tom Boggioni: 2.4%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.8%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.1%Tom Boggioni: 4.8%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal16.1%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 3.9%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.3%Tom Boggioni: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity3.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 41.0%Tom Boggioni: 5.4%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote41.0%This article: 4.9%Tom Boggioni: 4.1%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection4.9%This article: 50.8%Tom Boggioni: 19.7%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice50.8%This article: 8.5%Tom Boggioni: 0.7%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination8.5%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 4.1%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Boggioni: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Tom Boggioni: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.8%

329 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers25%attributed speech248writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageCNN • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 69 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 22 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 17 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

CNN

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words36% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%CNN: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-67.3 ptsWriter: 67.3%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-49.2 ptsWriter: 49.2%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.4 ptsWriter: 4.4%CNN: 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.