Newsmax75%

US Says It Disables 3rd Oil Tanker in Gulf of Oman 47%

6/11/2026, 12:13:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 70.6% saturation with 77 hits. Analysis detected 451 faulty-reasoning hits from 109 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.6% and a BS Rank of 47% (11,330 of 21,173 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.50% of the article peer group.

The ‌U.S. military said on Thursday it had disabled a third oil tanker in the ‌Gulf of Oman overnight ‌as it was trying to move ⁠Iranian oil through ‌an American blockade, saying it was ⁠the third commercial ship disabled by U.S. forces this ‌week. 
"U.S. 
Central Command (CENTCOM) ‌acted against ‌Guinea-Bissau flagged M/T Jalveer as ‌it attempted to transport oil from Iran through the Gulf ⁠of ‌Oman. 
A ⁠U.S. aircraft fired two ⁠Hellfire missiles ⁠into the ship's engine room ‌after the crew repeatedly failed to comply with directions ‌from ‌U.S. forces," ‌U.S. 
Central Command said in a statement. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.1%Newsmax: 3.4%Confirmation Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 40.4%Newsmax: 3.2%Availability Heuristic40.4%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 3.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 70.6%Newsmax: 11.0%Framing Effect70.6%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 4.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 63.3%Newsmax: 10.3%Negativity Bias63.3%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 3.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 2.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 40.4%Newsmax: 1.9%Recency Bias40.4%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.5%Newsmax: 4.8%Appeal to Authority5.5%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 4.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 22.9%Newsmax: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion22.9%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 40.4%Newsmax: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)40.4%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 22.9%Newsmax: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)22.9%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 63.3%Newsmax: 3.1%Unattributed Quote63.3%This article: 23.9%Newsmax: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection23.9%This article: 10.1%Newsmax: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice10.1%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsmax: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

109 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers26%attributed speech81writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageCentral Command (CENTCOM) • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageCentral Command • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words79% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%45.0%90.0%Unattributed Quote-85.2 ptsWriter: 85.2%Central Command (CENTCOM): 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-32.1 ptsWriter: 32.1%Central Command (CENTCOM): 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.6 ptsWriter: 13.6%Central Command (CENTCOM): 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.