Raw Story⁠93%

'It won't work': Columnist claims massive Trump's July 4 stunt is act of revenge ⁠89%

By Kathleen Culliton⁠79%

7/4/2026, 12:13:42 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 64.9% saturation with 172 hits. Analysis detected 900 faulty-reasoning hits from 265 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠89% (2,499 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.60% of the article peer group.

Fears are mounting over President Donald Trump's massive Independence Day fireworks display for one simple reason. 
His administration "couldn't even paint a pool blue." 
That's the criticism from MS NOW editor Ryan Teague Beckworth in an opinion piece detailing his pending dread of a 40-minute pyrotechnics "stunt" slated for 11 p.m. in Washington D.C. 
"Organizers aim to launch more than 850,000 fireworks — compared to the 7,000 at the 2025 show," wrote Beckworth. 
"The fireworks display is just another attempt to force the city to submit to his whims. 
As with all his grandiose gestures, it won’t work." 
Beckworth pointed to multiple problems that have plagued the Great American State Fair in Washington D.C. — the extreme heat, complaints of "inedible" food and a collapsing stage, among them — as reasons not to trust the Trump team to pull off the last big shebang. 
The writer also suggested the firework show was a form of revenge. 
"Ninety percent of Washington voted against Trump in 2024, one of the largest margins of any U.S. city," wrote Beckworth. 
"Trump doesn’t like that. 
He envisions himself as a grand potentate overseeing the capital city. 
Like Ozymandias, he wants its residents to build him a great arch and an opulent ballroom and hold elaborate events in his honor." 
Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Kyle Whitmere had another complaint for Trump, not as a citizen, but a dad. 
"Donald Trump might have kids," he wrote on X, "but anyone who schedules fireworks at 11 p.m. never parented children." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.1%Kathleen Culliton: 7.4%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias12.1%This article: 7.2%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias7.2%This article: 28.7%Kathleen Culliton: 5.5%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic28.7%This article: 14.7%Kathleen Culliton: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic14.7%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Kathleen Culliton: 13.5%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 29.8%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias29.8%This article: 64.9%Kathleen Culliton: 21.4%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias64.9%This article: 6.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias6.0%This article: 3.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.7%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error3.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect6.4%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 5.9%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.4%Kathleen Culliton: 4.0%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority6.4%This article: 6.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma6.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.4%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning3.4%This article: 28.3%Kathleen Culliton: 12.4%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization28.3%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.3%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.5%Kathleen Culliton: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon7.5%This article: 18.9%Kathleen Culliton: 8.4%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion18.9%This article: 6.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question6.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 3.7%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.4%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.6%Kathleen Culliton: 4.4%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal10.6%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.7%Kathleen Culliton: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.7%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.1%Kathleen Culliton: 4.9%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote18.1%This article: 10.6%Kathleen Culliton: 5.8%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection10.6%This article: 27.2%Kathleen Culliton: 16.5%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice27.2%This article: 3.4%Kathleen Culliton: 0.9%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination3.4%This article: 6.4%Kathleen Culliton: 5.6%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

265 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers75%attributed speech67writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Teague Beckworth • 30 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Teague Beckworth • 19 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Teague Beckworth • 16 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Teague Beckworth • 9 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Teague Beckworth • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Teague Beckworth • 20 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Teague Beckworth • 4 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Teague Beckworth • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Teague Beckworth • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageKyle Whitmere • 20 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kyle Whitmere

100%flagged-word coverage
20 attributed words10% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+88.1 ptsWriter: 11.9%Kyle Whitmere: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+88.1 ptsWriter: 11.9%Kyle Whitmere: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-62.7 ptsWriter: 62.7%Kyle Whitmere: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-25.4 ptsWriter: 25.4%Kyle Whitmere: 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.