Fox News⁠98%

WATCH: Falling America250 backdrop narrowly misses Gov. Shapiro #shorts⁠91%

4/10/2026, 1:00:31 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Burden of Proof, and Optimism Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 43.5% saturation with 40 hits. Analysis detected 312 faulty-reasoning hits from 83 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 84.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (2,085 of 22,221 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 90.60% of the video peer group.

WATCH: Falling America250 backdrop narrowly misses Gov. Shapiro #shorts 
and redone, POINT STATE PARK. OH, YES. 
OH, EVERYBODY OKAY? WE ARE all fine. 
>> Everyone is fine. 
This is such an exciting announcement 
that the world is falling apart over it. 
Yes. 
Quite all right, Dr. Franklin? 
>> so. Yes. 
>> Good. 
Okay. We are all good. We're holding on. 
I feel like Sandra Day O'Connor. There 
you go. You sure you're okay? Yes. Okay. 
Okay. We're sturdy at our age. We are 
sturdy at our age. Yes, 250 years does 
that. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.0%Fox News: 1.6%Confirmation Bias25.0%This article: 16.3%Fox News: 0.4%Anchoring Bias16.3%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.6%Fox News: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic7.6%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Fox News: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias8.7%This article: 16.3%Fox News: 13.2%Framing Effect16.3%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 22.8%Fox News: 0.0%Status Quo Bias22.8%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 27.2%Fox News: 0.0%Optimism Bias27.2%This article: 8.7%Fox News: 0.3%Pessimism Bias8.7%This article: 33.7%Fox News: 13.2%Negativity Bias33.7%This article: 8.7%Fox News: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Fox News: 0.0%Halo Effect7.6%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Fox News: 0.0%Primacy Effect9.8%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.0%Fox News: 0.9%Appeal to Authority13.0%This article: 8.7%Fox News: 0.0%False Dilemma8.7%This article: 8.7%Fox News: 1.9%Slippery Slope8.7%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.4%Fox News: 4.9%Hasty Generalization17.4%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 43.5%Fox News: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion43.5%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 33.7%Fox News: 0.8%Burden of Proof33.7%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.0%Fox News: 3.1%Anecdotal13.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.7%Fox News: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.7%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 1.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 11.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 5.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S
0.0%

92 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.6%attributed speech85writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice ‱ 9 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 6 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 1 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 5 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 3 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 2 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageSandra Day O'Connor ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 1 words ‱ 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sandra Day O'Connor

100%flagged-word coverage
7 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


Analysis

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