Raw Story⁠93%

WSJ bashes Trump's latest 'bad idea' in editorial: 'Let's hope the president realizes' ⁠78%

By Matthew Chapman⁠85%

7/14/2026, 12:38:26 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 63.3% saturation with 233 hits. Analysis detected 1,481 faulty-reasoning hits from 368 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (4,584 of 20,378 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.50% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump needs to admit he was taken for a ride by Iran, the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote in a Monday evening postmortem of his few-week-long memorandum of understanding that was initially touted as a step toward real peace. 
"Let’s hope the President realizes the memorandum of understanding Iran signed with him was a fraud," wrote the board, which has been skeptical of Trump's deal from the get-go . 
Trump certainly seems to have realized he needs a new approach, the board, wrote, as he is now committing the United States to protect commerce in the Strait of Hormuz — and demanding a 20% toll on cargo going through it. 
"No one knows how serious Mr. 
Trump is about a $15-a-barrel toll on oil exiting the Strait," wrote the board, calling it a "bad idea" but also not a "crazy" impulse for Trump to want to be compensated for being the world's police. 
"Most important is Mr. 
Trump’s commitment to the Strait. 
After ducking the matter in wartime, and then trying to solve it via diplomacy only for Iran to renege, the President now declares U.S. guardianship. 
This was always required to 'finish the job,' as he lately describes his goal." 
A new, tougher stance could turn things around for Trump, the board said, and put real pressure on the regime — but it took the president entirely too long to get to this point. 
"With the MOU Mr. 
Trump gave the regime a reprieve, and as usual it perceived U.S. weakness and sought to exploit it," wrote the board, saying that Iran made a mockery of the deal and it is "in tatters" now. 
"Giving up leverage with the MOU didn’t work, and we hope Mr. 
Trump has also tossed that in the bin of broken Iranian promises. 
If the Iranians want to talk about their nuclear weapons program, let them negotiate under the U.S. blockade as their main revenue source dries up." 
Ultimately, the board concluded, "Last week Mr. 
Trump told the truth about Iran’s lying regime. 
Now let him act on it — and stick to the strategy." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 42.4%Matthew Chapman: 7.5%Rawstory: 7.6%Confirmation Bias42.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 3.6%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 14.9%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias14.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Matthew Chapman: 16.5%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect3.5%This article: 6.8%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion6.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.5%Matthew Chapman: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias12.5%This article: 10.3%Matthew Chapman: 2.5%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias10.3%This article: 63.3%Matthew Chapman: 22.3%Rawstory: 22.0%Negativity Bias63.3%This article: 6.8%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias6.8%This article: 20.9%Matthew Chapman: 3.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error20.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Matthew Chapman: 1.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.1%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias11.1%This article: 8.2%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect8.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.6%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.5%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 6.8%Matthew Chapman: 4.1%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma6.8%This article: 9.2%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope9.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 9.9%Rawstory: 12.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.0%Matthew Chapman: 7.7%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion9.0%This article: 12.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question12.0%This article: 6.8%Matthew Chapman: 3.5%Rawstory: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 20.9%Matthew Chapman: 4.2%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal20.9%This article: 3.3%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman3.3%This article: 7.3%Matthew Chapman: 2.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.1%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground10.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 5.5%Unattributed Quote12.0%This article: 11.7%Matthew Chapman: 4.4%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection11.7%This article: 49.7%Matthew Chapman: 16.0%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice49.7%This article: 21.5%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination21.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.2%Rawstory: 8.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Matthew Chapman: 2.6%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

368 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers95%attributed speech19writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Wall Street Journal • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal editorial board • 12 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
336 attributed words96% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Unattributed Quote-64.8 ptsWriter: 73.7%Wall Street Journal editorial board: 8.9%8.9%Biased Writer Voice+50.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Wall Street Journal editorial board: 50.6%50.6%Indoctrination+23.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Wall Street Journal editorial board: 23.5%23.5%Politically Right Leaning +12.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Wall Street Journal editorial board: 12.8%12.8%Quote-first Misdirection+8.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Wall Street Journal editorial board: 8.9%8.9%

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.