Lyman: We Can't 'Unify' With People Who Don't Believe In Borders ⁠91%

By The Federalist Staff⁠0%

7/6/2026, 9:19:18 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Biased Writer Voice, and In-Group Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 80.7% saturation with 117 hits. Analysis detected 863 faulty-reasoning hits from 145 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (2,006 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.80% of the article peer group.

“I want to go back to … the idea that we shouldn’t bring politics into these (Fourth of July) speeches for both (Zohran) Mamdani and (President Donald) Trump. 
We should absolutely bring politics into these speeches, because it is political thought … You can’t uphold the Declaration (of Independence) or the Constitution with communism. 
That Republic only stands with the right kind of policies,” The Federalist’s Brianna Lyman said on Fox News at Night. 
“How do you unify … with people that let 20 million people come across this border illegally? 
How do you unify with people that said Charlie Kirk deserved it or that Luigi Mangione maybe had a point? 
There is no unity to be had with those people, and those are not the people that I can share a republic with.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 33.8%The Federalist Staff: 30.5%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias33.8%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 3.5%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%The Federalist Staff: 6.9%The Federalist: 3.5%Availability Heuristic11.7%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 2.7%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 4.6%The Federalist: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 26.9%The Federalist Staff: 24.1%The Federalist: 10.1%Framing Effect26.9%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 2.2%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 19.3%The Federalist Staff: 2.3%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias19.3%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 33.8%The Federalist Staff: 12.6%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias33.8%This article: 80.7%The Federalist Staff: 39.3%The Federalist: 12.4%Negativity Bias80.7%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 8.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 35.2%The Federalist Staff: 26.1%The Federalist: 3.9%In-Group Bias35.2%This article: 35.2%The Federalist Staff: 21.6%The Federalist: 2.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias35.2%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.7%The Federalist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 25.5%The Federalist Staff: 13.0%The Federalist: 5.3%Ad Hominem25.5%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 8.0%The Federalist: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.8%The Federalist Staff: 1.8%The Federalist: 5.0%Appeal to Authority13.8%This article: 41.4%The Federalist Staff: 27.1%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma41.4%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 8.3%The Federalist: 2.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.9%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 25.5%The Federalist Staff: 43.1%The Federalist: 11.4%Hasty Generalization25.5%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.7%The Federalist Staff: 34.2%The Federalist: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion11.7%This article: 17.9%The Federalist Staff: 8.5%The Federalist: 3.1%Begging the Question17.9%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 11.7%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 15.9%The Federalist Staff: 6.8%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof15.9%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 1.1%The Federalist: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 29.7%The Federalist Staff: 5.5%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman29.7%This article: 13.8%The Federalist Staff: 5.2%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.8%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 1.0%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 31.0%The Federalist Staff: 7.3%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote31.0%This article: 19.3%The Federalist Staff: 19.8%The Federalist: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection19.3%This article: 39.3%The Federalist Staff: 15.4%The Federalist: 19.7%Biased Writer Voice39.3%This article: 33.8%The Federalist Staff: 13.1%The Federalist: 5.2%Indoctrination33.8%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 42.2%The Federalist: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

145 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers21%attributed speech114writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Lyman • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageBrianna Lyman • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lyman

100%flagged-word coverage
11 attributed words35% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+59.6 ptsWriter: 40.4%Lyman: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-43.0 ptsWriter: 43.0%Lyman: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-39.5 ptsWriter: 39.5%Lyman: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-24.6 ptsWriter: 24.6%Lyman: 0.0%0.0%

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.