ABC News⁠99%

Questions surround $14M Reflecting Pool renovation as new paint peels off the bottom ⁠89%

6/18/2026, 5:54:02 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Availability Heuristic, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 67% saturation with 183 hits. Analysis detected 779 faulty-reasoning hits from 273 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠89% (2,506 of 21,887 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 88.60% of the video peer group.

Turn now to the reflecting pool on the National Mall. 
Tonight, not only has the new blue turned green, tonight reports the new paint is now peeling after $14 million was just spent to paint the pool and renovate it. 
Here's John Carl. 
Tonight, Washington's iconic reflecting pool is looking dirty and green. 
The brand new coat of blue paint already peeling off the bottom. 
All told, they spent $14 million to paint uh the the bottom of this reflecting pool American flag blue. 
But if you take a look, not only has the green of the algae come back, but look at that American flag blue in the paint. 
It's actually in the paint. 
It's starting to peel. 
It's coming up. 
No comment on that yet from the White House. 
The company that painted the pool had virtually no experience as a federal contractor. 
It'll last for 50 to 100 years before you have to do anything. 
>> By last week, the pool was blue and beautiful. 
2 days later, it started to turn green. 
4 days after that, algae everywhere. 
Today, workers were waiting through the pool, cleaning out the algae in the dirt. 
Just last night, the Trump administration said, and this is an exact quote, "The reflecting pool water is crystal clear." 
Well, the crews are working hard to try to make that happen here, but we've walked all around this reflecting pool, and let me tell you, David, it is far from crystal clear. 
>> All right, John Carl at the pool tonight. 
John, thanks. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.6%ABC News: 2.2%Confirmation Bias21.6%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 28.2%ABC News: 3.0%Availability Heuristic28.2%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%ABC News: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias6.6%This article: 17.6%ABC News: 6.8%Framing Effect17.6%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 17.9%ABC News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect17.9%This article: 4.8%ABC News: 2.4%Optimism Bias4.8%This article: 1.5%ABC News: 1.0%Pessimism Bias1.5%This article: 67.0%ABC News: 7.7%Negativity Bias67.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%ABC News: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error5.1%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%ABC News: 2.2%Halo Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 18.3%ABC News: 1.3%Recency Bias18.3%This article: 1.1%ABC News: 0.4%Primacy Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.5%ABC News: 3.3%Appeal to Authority12.5%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.2%ABC News: 2.8%Hasty Generalization2.2%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.7%ABC News: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.7%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 15.4%ABC News: 0.4%Burden of Proof15.4%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 34.1%ABC News: 1.2%Anecdotal34.1%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.8%ABC News: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.8%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 1.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 7.3%ABC News: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection7.3%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S
0.0%

273 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers15%attributed speech232writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice ‱ 13 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 10 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 30 words ‱ 0.0% coverageJohn Carl ‱ 3 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 10 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 12 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 19 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 26 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 5 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 3 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWhite House ‱ 9 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 14 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 13 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 10 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 6 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 14 words ‱ 0.0% coverageTrump administration ‱ 20 words ‱ 100.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 33 words ‱ 0.0% coverageJohn Carl ‱ 9 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 2 words ‱ 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump administration

100%flagged-word coverage
20 attributed words49% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump administration: 100.0%100.0%

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.