Jimmy Kimmel unleashes unfiltered rant in effort to take down Spencer Pratt's surging mayoral run despite admitting 'LA is a mess' 71%

By Brian Marks0%

5/29/2026, 12:06:21 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Hasty Generalization, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.6% saturation with 352 hits. Analysis detected 2,430 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,115 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.2% and a BS Rank of 71% (5,890 of 20,107 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.70% of the article peer group.

Jimmy Kimmel had his sights set on LA mayoral hopeful Spencer Pratt in a blistering rant on Wednesday night's episode of his eponymous late-night talk show. 
The 58-year-old comedian accused Pratt of merely being a 'narcissist looking for attention' as he tried to crater the former Hills star's campaign. 
Kimmel launched his barrage against the 42-year-old former Hills star  which included comparisons between Pratt and Donald Trump  despite admitting in the same monologue that Los Angeles under incumbent Mayor Karen Bass 'is a mess.' 
The Daily Mail has reached out to Pratt's representative for comment. 
The attacks on the registered Republican on Jimmy Kimmel Live come after he managed to put politics aside earlier on Wednesday to pay tribute to his longtime friend and former Man Show co-host, the conservative comedian Adam Carolla, when his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was unveiled. 
Despite the anti-Pratt slant of his monologue, Kimmel began by outlining the dispiriting state of city. 
'Here in Los Angeles, we have a very LA race for mayor on our hands here,' Kimmel said. 
'This city, let’s be honest, this city is a mess. 
That is something that became especially obvious during the fires. 
'But the people running the city, when you say this place is a mess, they go, "No, actually it isn’t. 
We’re doing a lot,"' he continued. 
'And then we look around and go, "I’m not seeing it." 
Kimmel added that many Angelenos were frustrated to see that 'nothing seems to change' with the city. 
'So then you get a guy who is on a reality show, who’s on a lot of reality shows. 
His profession is to be the screaming jerk on reality shows, and his house burns down,' the host continued, before mocking Pratt for failing to consider the safety of his own home. 
'And even though he had no private insurance on his house and doesn’t believe in climate change, he is understandably upset about his house burning down. 
And since he’s a moderately famous person, he gets attention,' Kimmel said. 
He joked that Pratt, who has no experience with politics, only got the idea to run for mayor after people started agreeing with him 'for the first time in his life.' 
'If you believe the polls, 22 percent of them are going, "You know what? 
You should be mayor,"' Kimmel continued, before mocking Pratt for using campaign money to stay in a luxury hotel, despite claiming that he was living in far more spartan conditions. 
The late-night host went so far as to suggest that Pratt might not even want to be LA's mayor. 
'You think this guy wants to sit through city council meetings all day talking about zoning?' 
he mused. 
'No, he wants to be a star again. 
And guess what? 
It’s working.' 
Kimmel went on to mock Pratt for his alleged similarities in style and politics to Donald Trump, though he joked that the difference between the LA mayor hopeful and the current president was that Trump 'had a job before he was on a reality show.' 
'He wasn’t good at the job. 
He got all the money for it from his dad. 
And the only thing he was good at was promoting himself,' Kimmel said. 
'And it turned out that was enough. 
And as a result, we are now going to have to spend the next three decades digging out of this giant hole he put us in. 
'But this hole now has given birth to Spencer Pratt, who is running for mayor, another narcissist looking for attention,' he added. 
As Kimmel urged Los Angeles residents not to vote for Pratt, he asked if they were 'really going to risk repeating that mistake.' 
'Mayor should not be your first job. 
The mayor of LA is in charge of a $14 billion annual budget. 
Spencer Pratt is not the person who should be in charge of [it],' he said. 
As evidence, Kimmel recalled how Pratt once admitted that he and his wife Heidi Montag spent an astonishing $10 million before December 21, 2012, in the mistaken belief that ancient Mayan calendars indicated the world would come to an end in the year 2012. 
'We made and spent at least $10 million,' Pratt said in a 2013 interview with OK! 
magazine. 
'The thing is, we heard that the planet was going to end in 2012. 
We thought, we have got to spend this money before the asteroid hits.' 
'I would give my friends $15,000 for their birthday. 
Just cash. 
I would buy people cars. 
Every valet I met got a couple of hundred [dollars] tip. 
I would pay people $200 just to open doors for us,' the reality star admitted at the time. 
Looking back on Pratt's spending spree, Kimmel said, 'That’s the guy 22 percent of you want to be mayor of Los Angeles when the Olympics come to town. 
You've got to be kidding me with this.' 
Although Kimmel was sympathetic with voters who might not want to reward Bass with a second term, he warned that 'you better find somebody else to vote for, and preferably somebody who isn’t wasting our time and money to get himself back on television.' 
'And for the rest of the candidates running for mayor, I hope you are paying attention to why you are currently trailing this person,' Kimmel concluded. 
While Pratt is attacking Bass from her right and courting other celebrities to publicize his campaign, LA City Councilmember Nithya Raman is running to Bass's left on an affordability platform reminiscent of the one Zohran Mamdani used in his successful campaign to be elected New York City mayor. 
Following Kimmel's monologue, Pratt appeared to defend himself against claims that he lacks experience in a post on X. 
'When people criticize me for not having experience, I'm a lifelong Angeleno who's seen my home city waste away under poor leadership. 
THAT is my experience. 
Just like you. 
Vote for LA. 
Vote today,' he wrote. 
Early on Thursday morning  as he went to New York City to appear on Fox & Friends  Pratt roasted Kimmel, writing on X that 'Jimmy's secretly voting for me.' 
He also shared a photo of his parents' incinerated home after it was destroyed in last year's LA fires. 
'This is my parents' house. 
This is why I'm running,' he wrote. 
'This is coming for your home. 
It's coming for your industry. 
If not by fire, then by blight, addicts, fraud, and the slow rot created by corrupt politicians like Karen Bass. 
Wake up and VOTE.' 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.5%Brian Marks: 2.4%Daily Mail: 2.7%Confirmation Bias2.5%This article: 3.8%Brian Marks: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.7%Anchoring Bias3.8%This article: 8.3%Brian Marks: 1.7%Daily Mail: 2.8%Availability Heuristic8.3%This article: 10.0%Brian Marks: 1.4%Daily Mail: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic10.0%This article: 0.6%Brian Marks: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.6%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Brian Marks: 2.8%Daily Mail: 6.9%Framing Effect9.1%This article: 6.0%Brian Marks: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.4%Loss Aversion6.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.5%Daily Mail: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Brian Marks: 0.8%Daily Mail: 1.1%Pessimism Bias7.0%This article: 31.6%Brian Marks: 6.5%Daily Mail: 10.9%Negativity Bias31.6%This article: 3.4%Brian Marks: 1.1%Daily Mail: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 3.9%Brian Marks: 0.8%Daily Mail: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error3.9%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.3%Brian Marks: 0.4%Daily Mail: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.3%This article: 4.4%Brian Marks: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 6.5%Daily Mail: 5.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 1.1%Daily Mail: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.1%Brian Marks: 0.7%Daily Mail: 1.7%Recency Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Brian Marks: 3.2%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem15.1%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 1.3%Daily Mail: 3.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 12.0%Brian Marks: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.9%False Dilemma12.0%This article: 4.7%Brian Marks: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.4%Slippery Slope4.7%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.8%Brian Marks: 3.5%Daily Mail: 3.9%Hasty Generalization14.8%This article: 4.4%Brian Marks: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.4%Red Herring4.4%This article: 1.3%Brian Marks: 0.7%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon1.3%This article: 9.8%Brian Marks: 4.4%Daily Mail: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion9.8%This article: 2.0%Brian Marks: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.5%Begging the Question2.0%This article: 5.7%Brian Marks: 1.1%Daily Mail: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.7%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.2%Brian Marks: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.4%Burden of Proof1.2%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.3%Brian Marks: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division4.3%This article: 14.5%Brian Marks: 2.6%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal14.5%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.5%Brian Marks: 1.5%Daily Mail: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.5%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 1.4%Daily Mail: 3.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.5%Brian Marks: 0.5%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection2.5%This article: 11.7%Brian Marks: 10.6%Daily Mail: 8.9%Biased Writer Voice11.7%This article: 11.3%Brian Marks: 1.5%Daily Mail: 1.0%Indoctrination11.3%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Marks: 0.5%Daily Mail: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1115 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers79%attributed speech238writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageThe Daily Mail • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 32 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 31 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 45 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 23 words • 100.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 7 words • 100.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 15 words • 100.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 44 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 2 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 5 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 28 words • 100.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 44 words • 100.0% coverageJimmy Kimmel • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 22 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 4 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 3 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 3 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 4 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 31 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 5 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 7 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 6 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 5 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jimmy Kimmel

99%flagged-word coverage
645 attributed words74% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-55.0 ptsWriter: 55.0%Jimmy Kimmel: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+17.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jimmy Kimmel: 17.8%17.8%Quote-first Misdirection+4.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jimmy Kimmel: 4.3%4.3%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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