Raw Story⁠93%

'Nobody wants this': Invitees bail on Friday night bash because Trump's too 'exhausting' ⁠92%

By Alexander Willis⁠88%

7/24/2026, 1:06:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Hasty Generalization, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 46.7% saturation with 150 hits. Analysis detected 977 faulty-reasoning hits from 321 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠92% (1,805 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.80% of the article peer group.

No one wants to go to President Donald Trump's big Friday night party, according to a new report. 
The White House Correspondents Dinner is expected to have terrible turnout after a gunman stormed the last one and journalists report mounting weariness over Trump, Politico reported Friday. 
“Nobody wants this," one White House reporter told Politico, speaking under the condition of anonymity, "other than Donald Trump." 
Another White House reporter said they, too, would be skipping the much-hyped event . 
“I would go if I were in town, but I don’t know – it’s just exhausting,” they told Politico. 
Among the reasons behind journalists’ decision to skip the event is Trump’s frequent attacks on the media, which include his administration issuing subpoenas to reporters, threatening journalists with jail time, and filing lawsuits against news organizations. 
One reporter described as a “prominent veteran journalist” told Politico that those attending Friday night’s event were “pretty unhappy about being there,” citing a growing “tension and unease” among reporters given Trump’s aggression toward media outlets. 
Beyond Trump’s hostility with the press, reporters also told Politico that events like “vacations, weddings and family commitments” were of a higher priority than attending the annual White House Correspondents Dinner. 
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Politico that Trump's speech at the dinner "will be entertaining," promising it will be "unifying yet vicious, and serious yet hilarious." 
She also pushed back on the notion that reporters were skipping the event for any reason beyond scheduling conflicts. 
“Leavitt said the speech changed little from the version Trump planned to give in April,” Politico’s report reads. 
“He’ll address the original dinner’s events, she said, with a mix of gravity and humor. 
The White House expects most of the Cabinet and senior staff to attend; Leavitt said anyone missing has a scheduling conflict rather than a lack of enthusiasm.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.5%Alexander Willis: 6.9%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.9%Alexander Willis: 7.3%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic19.9%This article: 11.2%Alexander Willis: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic11.2%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.6%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.4%Alexander Willis: 18.2%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect17.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 18.1%Alexander Willis: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias18.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.7%Alexander Willis: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias8.7%This article: 5.9%Alexander Willis: 3.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias5.9%This article: 46.7%Alexander Willis: 28.1%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias46.7%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.6%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 3.7%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.3%Alexander Willis: 4.3%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority14.3%This article: 8.4%Alexander Willis: 2.6%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma8.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 32.4%Alexander Willis: 8.9%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization32.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 10.9%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 19.9%Alexander Willis: 2.7%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.9%Alexander Willis: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof5.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 24.0%Alexander Willis: 6.7%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal24.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 37.1%Alexander Willis: 8.1%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote37.1%This article: 4.0%Alexander Willis: 5.8%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection4.0%This article: 12.8%Alexander Willis: 13.1%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice12.8%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 7.0%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

321 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker15%attributed speech274writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 28 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Karoline Leavitt

100%flagged-word coverage
47 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Unattributed Quote-43.4 ptsWriter: 43.4%Karoline Leavitt: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-15.0 ptsWriter: 15.0%Karoline Leavitt: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%Karoline Leavitt: 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.