Fox News⁠98%

State Department BLOCKS NYC advisor from meeting with Iran envoy #foxnews #news ⁠97%

7/12/2026, 11:30:21 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 58% saturation with 112 hits. Analysis detected 790 faulty-reasoning hits from 193 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 94.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠97% (801 of 21,886 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 96.30% of the video peer group.

News from the Big Apple today, fallout after reports that a senior advisor to New York City Mayor Eric Adams had plans to meet with the Iran's ambassador to the United Nations. The State Department says it stepped in to quash the meeting. 
CB Cotton is live in New York with more. 
Hi, CB. 
>> Hey, Mike. So, after the State Department reportedly stepped in to clarify acceptable conduct, we're told that it was Mayor Adams who ultimately called off the meeting between his commissioner for international affairs, Ana Maria Archila, and Iran's UN Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani. 
Archila was reportedly reprimanded for the move, 
but the fact that the meeting was even considered continues to raise eyebrows, 
including from US Ambassador Mike Waltz, who reacted today on Sunday Morning Futures. 
>> It would have been a huge propaganda victory for the Ayatollah in the middle 
of a conflict as they're not only shooting at Americans, but they're 
shooting at global shipping, uh and we're doing everything we can to keep 
them internationally isolated. It's outrageous, and we shut it down. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 45.1%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias45.1%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 29.0%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic29.0%This article: 6.2%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 36.3%Fox Nation: 11.9%Framing Effect36.3%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: 6.7%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias6.7%This article: 13.0%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias13.0%This article: 58.0%Fox Nation: 10.8%Negativity Bias58.0%This article: 11.9%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%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: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%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: 6.7%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias6.7%This article: 6.2%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 58.0%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority58.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 7.8%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope7.8%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.0%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization14.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 38.9%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion38.9%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 22.8%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)22.8%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 45.1%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof45.1%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: 3.6%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal3.6%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: 1.8%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%

193 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.7%attributed speech180writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice ‱ 12 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 43 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 9 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 2 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 44 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 13 words ‱ 0.0% coverageUS Ambassador Mike Waltz ‱ 13 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 15 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 12 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 13 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 10 words ‱ 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words100% of attributed speech94% 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


Analysis

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