Fox News98%

McEnany SOUNDS OFF on Jill Biden's stunning admission #foxnews #news #us #fox 100%

5/29/2026, 12:00:09 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Bandwagon, and Appeal to Emotion, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 68.6% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 804 faulty-reasoning hits from 175 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of 100% (170 of 20,247 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 99.20% of the video peer group.

That is not the reaction of someone who believes they just watched their husband have a stroke. 
It it is an absolute lie. 
It was fraud what she did. 
Fraud on the American public. 
And she's continuing it by saying she had never seen him like that before or after. 
Dana, you'll remember Carl Bernstein who said he talked to people who knew Joe Biden, loved Joe Biden, supported Joe Biden, and they were adamant that what we saw was not a one-off. 
They said it had happened 15 or 20 times prior, him losing his train of thought. 
He described a fundraiser where he froze up and seemed to have some type of rigor mortise. 
This is not something that was a one-off. 
There is reporting and vast reporting. 
If you don't believe me with that one, Olivia Newsy, the conspiracy of silence, where reporters debated how dead the president appeared in 2020 and they settled on 40%. 
This was well known. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 68.6%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias68.6%This article: 22.3%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias22.3%This article: 9.1%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Fox Nation: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias13.7%This article: 19.4%Fox Nation: 12.0%Framing Effect19.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 61.7%Fox Nation: 10.9%Negativity Bias61.7%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error13.1%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Fox Nation: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.9%This article: 18.9%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect18.9%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem13.1%This article: 9.1%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man9.1%This article: 43.4%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority43.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 26.3%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization26.3%This article: 16.6%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring16.6%This article: 48.0%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon48.0%This article: 45.1%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion45.1%This article: 5.7%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question5.7%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof3.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 18.9%Fox Nation: 2.3%Anecdotal18.9%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

175 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker19%attributed speech142writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCarl Bernstein • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Carl Bernstein

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.