Fox News98%

Trump's teleprompter operator SUSPENDED over betting claims 89%

7/18/2026, 5:30:21 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 33.7% saturation with 224 hits. Analysis detected 2,284 faulty-reasoning hits from 664 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.4% and a BS Rank of 89% (2,552 of 21,887 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 88.30% of the video peer group.

Who is going to print up the teleprompter tonight after this report 
that the other guy is now under investigation for making money 
>> Yeah. 
>> off of reading the president's speech? 
>> Obviously, I'm aware of the report. The president is too. I spoke with him about it. 
He believes it's deeply unfortunate 
and frankly a disgrace. 
Uh and the individual that was cited in that report uh is complying with the CFTC, but has been put on paid administrative leave. 
I'm sorry, without pay. The administrative leave is unpaid um to be very clear. 
That was a decision by the president. 
So, I think that speaks for itself. 
>> On the um concerns about 
>> Okay, it sent shockwaves uh across Washington. 
President Trump's long-time prompter operator now under investigation for insider trading after he allegedly made $100,000 by betting on the president's speech. 
He would see them and then bet on what the president would say. 
For more on this, Outkick would say. 
founder uh Clay Travis and Fox News contributor uh joins me now. 
Clay, um 
wow. 
I knew a lot of people were betting on these markets in Washington, but never someone that was so close to the president who's been doing this for I think a decade. 
Reading the speeches and then actively, you know, betting on it and making money. 
>> Yeah, I think the challenge here, Aisha, is this is a predetermined outcome that many people would know in advance of the actual event itself, right? 
So, this is different than, say, a sporting event when we've got the World Cup coming up and you don't know what's going to happen at all. 
Uh there have been some of these so-called markets in reality shows, for instance, that are taped uh and you can make different sorts of predictions about what's going to happen on them. 
And here, obviously, as you well know, many people get access to the president's speeches before they're actually delivered. 
Now, to be fair, President Trump goes off the teleprompter quite a lot, so there are many things he says that are not already uh in that prompter, but this is something that shouldn't frankly be allowed. 
allowed. I think it's to me a bad market because again, these speeches are pre-written and so you have definite knowledge from a wide variety of people, which makes it a hard market to treat as a as a fair process by which to be putting money down. 
>> I think Cal and Polymarket should just get rid of those parts of the market. 
>> I think they both Yeah, I think Cal and Polymarket need to be looking at markets that are out there that have already been determined, right? 
There's a difference between a market that's uncertain, who's going to be the next governor of California for instance, and what President Trump is going to say in a in a speech in 10 minutes that's already written. 
>> And the thing is that this isn't a one-off. 
I mean, you remember that the US soldier who bet on the Maduro capture when that was going to happen. 
There was also this 
from the New York Times. In April, three political candidates were found trying to bet on their own races. In June, federal authorities said they were investigating whether former representative George Santos had made a bet about attending Mr. Trump's State of the Union address. 
I mean, this this is rampant, you know, all over definitely the nation's capital, but I mean, people are just taking such an interest with the president 
that this is running so rampant. So, I I 
I agree with you. I think there has to be changes made for for this to not happen again. 
>> Be sure to like and subscribe for all 
the Fox News latest on YouTube and catch full shows streaming now on Fox 1. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.3%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias13.3%This article: 1.8%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias1.8%This article: 24.5%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic24.5%This article: 9.8%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic9.8%This article: 1.5%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias1.5%This article: 14.6%Fox Nation: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias14.6%This article: 1.1%Fox Nation: 11.9%Framing Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.4%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias4.1%This article: 16.9%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias16.9%This article: 26.4%Fox Nation: 10.8%Negativity Bias26.4%This article: 6.9%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias6.9%This article: 7.2%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error7.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias2.9%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: 11.4%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias11.4%This article: 2.9%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.8%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.8%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.3%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority13.3%This article: 8.1%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma8.1%This article: 2.9%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope2.9%This article: 7.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning7.2%This article: 33.7%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization33.7%This article: 1.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring1.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.3%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion20.3%This article: 10.7%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question10.7%This article: 4.5%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.5%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 22.1%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof22.1%This article: 7.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature7.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 23.5%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal23.5%This article: 5.6%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman5.6%This article: 27.6%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)27.6%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.1%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground4.1%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.4%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading2.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.1%Fox Nation: 1.8%Unattributed Quote1.1%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%

664 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers15%attributed speech567writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageOutkick • 7 words • 0.0% coverageFox News • 12 words • 0.0% coverageClay Travis • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coveragePolymarket • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageNew York Times • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageFox News • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

New York Times

100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words46% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Unattributed Quote-1.2 ptsWriter: 1.2%New York Times: 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.