Raw Story93%

'It's stunning!' CNN's Erin Burnett floored as Trump 'raking it in' with Saudi deal 86%

By Robert Davis75%

7/24/2026, 12:54:41 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 49% saturation with 150 hits. Analysis detected 882 faulty-reasoning hits from 306 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 78.1% and a BS Rank of 86% (3,053 of 21,107 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.50% of the article peer group.

'It's stunning!' 
CNN's Erin Burnett floored as Trump 'raking it in' with Saudi deal 
The details of President Donald Trump's nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia caused alarm bells to ring out on CNN on Thursday. 
CNN's Erin Burnett and Rep. 
James Walkinshaw (D-VA) discussed a new report during a segment on "OutFront" that the Trump company has been awarded a $63 billion development opportunity in Saudi Arabia, and that award happened around the same time that the Trump administration was negotiating with the Saudis in a deal that allows the country to enrich nuclear energy for civilian purposes . 
The company that awarded the development agreement is also linked to Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed Bin-Salman, who has also invested in Jared Kushner's $2 billion hedge fund during the first Trump administration. 
It also noted that Trump gets to keep 80% ownership in the development deal himself, while his family gets the remaining 20%. 
Burnett was taken aback by the report. 
" It's stunning," Burnett said about the report. 
"Congressman, the W hite House [told] Forbes there are no conflicts of interest. 
What do you say?" 
Walkinshaw did not mince words in his reaction. 
"Clearly, we have a president of the United States, Donald Trump, who has been bought and paid for by MBS and the Saudi royal family," Walkinshaw said. 
"As the American people struggle to make ends meet, Donald Trump is raking it in. 
And it appears, at least initially, [he's] giving them in return a much sweeter nuclear deal, quite frankly, than was on the table in the Biden administration with much weaker inspections, at least initially without a commitment to join the Abraham Accords. 
The Saudis must have been feeling like they were getting what they paid for." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 41.8%Robert Davis: 9.7%Rawstory: 7.7%Confirmation Bias41.8%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Robert Davis: 3.4%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic6.9%This article: 10.8%Robert Davis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Robert Davis: 15.2%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect7.8%This article: 4.9%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion4.9%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 49.0%Robert Davis: 20.5%Rawstory: 21.8%Negativity Bias49.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Robert Davis: 3.6%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error10.8%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Robert Davis: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Robert Davis: 5.0%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem13.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.2%Robert Davis: 5.5%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority4.2%This article: 13.7%Robert Davis: 1.6%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma13.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.7%Robert Davis: 14.2%Rawstory: 11.9%Hasty Generalization13.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 28.4%Robert Davis: 8.2%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion28.4%This article: 8.8%Robert Davis: 1.2%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question8.8%This article: 19.3%Robert Davis: 4.2%Rawstory: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.3%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.6%Robert Davis: 4.8%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal4.6%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 5.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 10.8%Robert Davis: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy10.8%This article: 1.3%Robert Davis: 5.5%Rawstory: 5.4%Unattributed Quote1.3%This article: 5.2%Robert Davis: 6.1%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection5.2%This article: 23.5%Robert Davis: 13.1%Rawstory: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice23.5%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 5.0%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

306 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers51%attributed speech151writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJames Walkinshaw (D-VA) • 59 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageErin Burnett • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageErin Burnett • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJames Walkinshaw (D-VA) • 27 words • 100.0% coverageJames Walkinshaw (D-VA) • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJames Walkinshaw (D-VA) • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
143 attributed words92% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-10.9 ptsWriter: 29.8%James Walkinshaw (D-VA): 18.9%18.9%Quote-first Misdirection-10.6 ptsWriter: 10.6%James Walkinshaw (D-VA): 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%James Walkinshaw (D-VA): 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.