Raw Story93%

Trump's overnight rant accidentally boosted his enemy in yet 'another self-own': critics 89%

By David McAfee0%

6/28/2026, 6:30:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 60% saturation with 271 hits. Analysis detected 1,397 faulty-reasoning hits from 452 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.7% and a BS Rank of 89% (2,504 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.60% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump's late-night tirade against journalist Maggie Haberman over her new book backfired in real time this week, as critics  including a fellow conservative  seized on the attack to mock the president and, in at least one case, boost sales of the very book he was trashing. 
Trump had unloaded on Haberman in an all-caps Truth Social post, dismissing the book as "mostly made up" and deriding the New York Times reporter as a "third rate writer," while repeatedly mangling her name as "Magot Hagerman." 
CNN anchor Jake Tapper responded by flipping the attack into free promotion for the book, "Regime Change," co-authored by Haberman and Jonathan Swan. 
"Disagree, Mr. 
President!" 
Tapper wrote. 
"REGIME CHANGE by @maggieNYT and @jonathanvswan is a great and fascinating read. 
Maggie is a great writer and intellect and was right about you and the elections, and much more!" 
He then added a link so readers could buy the book. 
Some of the sharpest commentary came from the right. 
Matthew RJ Brodsky, a conservative foreign policy analyst, pointed out the obvious flaw in Trump's claim that Haberman was irrelevant. 
"Trump literally calls her all the time," Brodsky wrote. 
"Another self-own." 
Writer Brent Snyder delivered an extended takedown, opening with a dig at the president's eating habits. 
"Oh, Donny Two-Scoops, bless your fragile little heart," Snyder wrote, before characterizing the post as "another all-caps meltdown over a book you clearly couldn't put down fast enough to 'brief' on it." 
Snyder went on to skewer Trump's central accusation, arguing the "mostly made up" charge was rich "coming from the guy who turned 'alternative facts' into a business model." 
He defended Haberman as a chronicler of Trump's "lies, the chaos, the ego-fueled disasters," and needled the president over his repeated misspelling of her name: "At least spell her name right while having a meltdown, champ." 
He also took aim at Trump's election boasts, writing that the president "lost in 2020. 
Spectacularly," and was now "crowing about 2024 like a toddler who finally won a participation trophy after throwing tantrums for four years." 
On Trump's insistence that no incriminating audio tapes exist, Snyder wrote that the denial came "from the man whose own recordings have sunk him before." 
Others kept it brief. 
The account David Gallant, @GallantDG, summed up the likely commercial effect of the president's outburst in three words: "Another best seller." 
The collective response underscored a familiar dynamic: Trump's attempts to bury a critical book often serve only to amplify it, handing the author a wave of publicity that money can't buy  and, as Tapper demonstrated, a direct sales link to go with it. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%David McAfee: 2.4%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%David McAfee: 4.3%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic12.6%This article: 14.2%David McAfee: 3.5%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic14.2%This article: 20.8%David McAfee: 7.6%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias20.8%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%David McAfee: 15.7%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect7.7%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.6%David McAfee: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 60.0%David McAfee: 33.3%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias60.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%David McAfee: 0.5%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias2.0%This article: 2.0%David McAfee: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.0%This article: 6.6%David McAfee: 4.6%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect6.6%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 23.5%David McAfee: 23.8%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem23.5%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.0%David McAfee: 1.5%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority2.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.4%David McAfee: 12.6%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization16.4%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 23.9%David McAfee: 6.0%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion23.9%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 28.5%David McAfee: 7.1%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)28.5%This article: 11.7%David McAfee: 10.8%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque11.7%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 2.4%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 0.0%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.7%David McAfee: 0.3%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.7%This article: 29.2%David McAfee: 17.1%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice29.2%This article: 9.7%David McAfee: 2.4%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination9.7%This article: 0.0%David McAfee: 12.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.2%David McAfee: 4.0%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias16.2%This article: 16.8%David McAfee: 7.7%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…16.8%

452 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers50%attributed speech227writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJake Tapper • 2 words • 100.0% coverageJake Tapper • 1 words • 100.0% coverageJake Tapper • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJake Tapper • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJake Tapper • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageMatthew RJ Brodsky • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMatthew RJ Brodsky • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Snyder • 32 words • 100.0% coverageBrent Snyder • 28 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Snyder • 36 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Snyder • 15 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Snyder • 22 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Snyder • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Gallant • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Gallant

100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words9.3% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +75.8 ptsWriter: 24.2%David Gallant: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-44.1 ptsWriter: 44.1%David Gallant: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -32.2 ptsWriter: 32.2%David Gallant: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-19.4 ptsWriter: 19.4%David Gallant: 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.