MS NOW⁠95%

House Oversight Democrats investigating why a photo was removed from Epstein files release⁠96%

12/20/2025, 9:58:49 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Red Herring, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 75 hits. Analysis detected 411 faulty-reasoning hits from 75 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 93.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠96% (878 of 21,230 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 95.90% of the article peer group.

Backlash is growing against the DOJ after the partial release of the Epstein files, in part because House Oversight Democrats noticed a photo of Epstein’s desk, which was part of the release, was removed from the deck. 
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, joins Alex Witt to share his insight and reaction to the release of the Epstein files, to discuss his latest bill on White House renovations, and more. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 49.3%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias49.3%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 49.3%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect49.3%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 50.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect50.7%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 100.0%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias100.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 49.3%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias49.3%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 3.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 4.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 49.3%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)49.3%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 50.7%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority50.7%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 49.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)49.3%This article: 100.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring100.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%

75 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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