Raw Story⁠93%

Trump 'doesn't care' to sign bipartisan bill that would help desperate Americans: Analyst - Raw Story ⁠58%

By Kathleen Culliton⁠79%

7/10/2026, 5:45:31 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 36.4% saturation with 99 hits. Analysis detected 647 faulty-reasoning hits from 272 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (9,267 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.70% of the article peer group.

Kathleen Culliton is Raw Story's managing editor. 
She's been covering local and national news for more than a decade for outlets that include the New York Post, Al Jazeera, DNAinfo New York, Bustle, the New York Daily News, WNYC, NY1, City Limits and the New York City Patch. 
Kathleen is a proud alumna of the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. 
The clock is ticking for President Donald Trump to either sign or veto a bipartisan bill that could help renters and prospective homeowners nationwide, reports show. 
The housing legislation will go into effect midnight Friday as the 10-day deadline to either sign or kill the bill elapses. 
Despite the bill's strong bipartisan support and the pressing need for housing, Trump has taken no action, noted political analyst Amy Suskind. 
"It’s one of the least politically astute moves that I can remember," she wrote on X . 
"He just doesn’t care." 
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act aims at ease the nation’s affordability crisis and passed in both the House and Senate last month. 
But Trump canceled his signing ceremony on June 24 as he demanded Congress push the SAVE America Act forward instead, an MS NOW report notes. 
"The housing legislation represents one of the rare major bipartisan achievements of the 119th Congress," MS NOW reported, "bringing together lawmakers from both parties around a package intended to increase the nation’s housing supply and lower costs for renters and prospective homebuyers." 
ALSO READ: Trump is trying to imprison Americans for joining internet chats he doesn't like 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.1%Kathleen Culliton: 7.4%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Kathleen Culliton: 5.5%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic15.1%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%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: 36.4%Kathleen Culliton: 13.5%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect36.4%This article: 9.6%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion9.6%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: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 36.4%Kathleen Culliton: 21.4%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias36.4%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Kathleen Culliton: 2.7%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error9.6%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: 15.4%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect15.4%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: 34.9%Kathleen Culliton: 4.0%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority34.9%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 12.4%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 5.5%Kathleen Culliton: 1.3%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring5.5%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.0%Kathleen Culliton: 8.4%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion21.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.2%Kathleen Culliton: 3.7%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.2%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: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 4.4%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.5%Kathleen Culliton: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.5%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: 8.1%Kathleen Culliton: 4.9%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote8.1%This article: 13.6%Kathleen Culliton: 5.8%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection13.6%This article: 12.1%Kathleen Culliton: 16.5%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice12.1%This article: 1.5%Kathleen Culliton: 0.9%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination1.5%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 5.6%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%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%

272 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers40%attributed speech162writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Suskind • 22 words • 100.0% coverageAmy Suskind • 17 words • 100.0% coverageAmy Suskind • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMS NOW • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMS NOW • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Amy Suskind

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words39% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Unattributed Quote+51.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Amy Suskind: 51.2%51.2%Quote-first Misdirection+39.0 ptsWriter: 9.9%Amy Suskind: 48.8%48.8%Biased Writer Voice+29.7 ptsWriter: 9.9%Amy Suskind: 39.5%39.5%Indoctrination+9.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Amy Suskind: 9.3%9.3%

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.