'Essential': Senate prepares bipartisan campaign to defy Trump ⁠83%

By Matthew Chapman⁠86%

7/9/2026, 5:24:29 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Unattributed Quote, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 35.4% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 657 faulty-reasoning hits from 243 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (3,924 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.10% of the article peer group.

A bipartisan group of senators will launch Thursday a new effort to force President Donald Trump to restore a popular and critical program his administration cut, according to a new report. 
Sens. 
Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jon Husted and Bernie Moreno (R-OH), and Andy Kim (D-NJ) will introduce a new bill to bring back a Commerce Department program that helps "hundreds of thousands of US manufacturing firms," according to Semafor. 
"[The legislation] comes as Commerce withholds funding for Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers across the country, forcing hiring freezes or layoffs at 90% of them , according to one estimate," the report stated. 
The Manufacturing Extension Partnership is a public-private program that connects smaller domestic manufacturers with technology solutions. 
Ohio alone has had to close six centers after the Trump administration froze the program. 
Despite these issues, and despite Trump having pledged to support American manufacturing throughout his political career, the administration has proposed eliminating the program entirely in its latest budget request — and these senators are trying to force it to do the opposite. 
“In order to help small manufacturers compete in an increasingly small and globalized world, it is important that they have the resources to grow and adapt,” said Schiff. 
The Trump administration has cut numerous small programs, much of it driven by the now-defunct Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) program. 
Despite this, deficit spending has not appreciably decreased since he took office. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.3%Matthew Chapman: 7.5%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias17.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Matthew Chapman: 4.1%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic6.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Matthew Chapman: 17.2%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect12.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%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: 11.5%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.9%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 35.4%Matthew Chapman: 22.8%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias35.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Matthew Chapman: 3.4%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error17.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.4%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%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: 8.6%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.5%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.2%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority15.2%This article: 17.3%Matthew Chapman: 3.9%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma17.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.2%Matthew Chapman: 10.2%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization6.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 24.3%Matthew Chapman: 7.9%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion24.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.6%Matthew Chapman: 3.5%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.7%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: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.2%Matthew Chapman: 4.0%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal13.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.9%Matthew Chapman: 3.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 28.4%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote28.4%This article: 13.2%Matthew Chapman: 4.4%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection13.2%This article: 30.0%Matthew Chapman: 16.7%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice30.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.9%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.5%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

243 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker12%attributed speech215writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Schiff • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Adam Schiff

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words100% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.0 ptsWriter: 34.0%Adam Schiff: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-32.1 ptsWriter: 32.1%Adam Schiff: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-14.9 ptsWriter: 14.9%Adam Schiff: 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.