Raw Story⁠93%

Hot mic catches broadcaster mystified by Trump's World Cup stunt: 'Edit him out of that' ⁠80%

By Robert Davis⁠75%

7/19/2026, 5:41:47 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Negativity Bias, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 43.8% saturation with 84 hits. Analysis detected 438 faulty-reasoning hits from 192 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠80% (4,580 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.10% of the article peer group.

An Australian broadcaster was mystified by President Donald Trump's stunt at the World Cup Final on Sunday, which was caught on a hot mic. 
Trump accompanied FIFA President Gianni Infantino on the field for the trophy presentation ceremony following Spain's 1-0 win over Argentina in the World Cup Final in New York on Sunday. 
Trump was roundly booed by the crowd as the two men walked onto the field, and he stuck around for the team photo, which seemed to catch Infantino off guard. 
One of the broadcasters was seemingly confused by the visual. 
"Are they going to edit him out of that?" 
the broadcaster from SBS Australia said, referring to the image of Trump and Infantino on stage while the confetti cannons rang out and the Spanish team hoisted the trophy. 
The World Cup Final was not the first time that Trump seemed to overstay his welcome during a trophy presentation ceremony. 
Trump awkwardly stuck around for the FIFA Gold Club World Cup trophy ceremony with Chelsea last year, which baffled some of the team's stars. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.2%Robert Davis: 9.7%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 3.4%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%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: 35.4%Robert Davis: 15.2%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect35.4%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%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: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 35.9%Robert Davis: 20.5%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias35.9%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 3.6%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%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: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%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: 10.9%Robert Davis: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias10.9%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: 0.0%Robert Davis: 5.0%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 5.5%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.6%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.9%Robert Davis: 14.2%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization10.9%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: 0.0%Robert Davis: 8.2%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.2%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 4.2%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.7%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: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 40.1%Robert Davis: 4.8%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal40.1%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 33.3%Robert Davis: 5.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)33.3%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: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.7%Robert Davis: 5.5%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote4.7%This article: 7.8%Robert Davis: 6.1%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection7.8%This article: 43.8%Robert Davis: 13.1%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice43.8%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: 1.0%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%

192 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker15%attributed speech163writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageSBS Australia • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

SBS Australia

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words100% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice-51.5 ptsWriter: 51.5%SBS Australia: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%SBS Australia: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%SBS Australia: 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.