Raw Story⁠93%

WSJ rips into Trump for tearing down the economy over his 'obsession' ⁠93%

By Matthew Chapman⁠86%

7/25/2026, 1:06:23 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 64% saturation with 210 hits. Analysis detected 1,061 faulty-reasoning hits from 328 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 88.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠93% (1,574 of 21,771 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.80% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump got a reaming from the Wall Street Journal on Friday over his ongoing "obsession" with imposing as many tariffs as possible. 
The Journal's editorial board, while unflinchingly conservative, has nonetheless been waging a low-grade war against the president over his trade policy ever since he resumed office, opposing to his broad-based schemes to tax as many imports as possible — and particularly warning that tariffs imposed right ahead of a critical midterm election can only spell disaster. 
"The Administration late Thursday unveiled new tariffs under Section 301 to replace the President’s Section 122 tariffs that were lapsing. 
These latest duties will affect some 60 economies, hitting nearly all U.S. imports, with rates from 10% to 12.5%, and they come on top of a slew of other border taxes," wrote the board. 
The Supreme Court may have killed his first tariff scheme under emergency powers — but he's now using a number of other laws, including Section 301, which means he is effectively accusing Canada and the European Union of importing goods made with forced labor, Section 232; which is a national security provision Trump is applying to generic medicines, cars, furniture, steel, aluminum, and semiconductors; and Section 338, a never-before-used section of the controversial 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act. 
Trump, the board lamented, "doesn’t seem to care about the damage since tariff costs are dispersed across businesses, consumers and workers. 
Customs duties have raised $163 billion in the current fiscal year through June, which excludes some $70 billion in emergency-tariff refunds. 
That’s a big tax increase." 
And ultimately, the board warned, Trump's party is going to take a hit at the ballot box. 
"Americans remain unhappy about the economy, and higher prices are a big reason," the board concluded. 
Even if they don't know the exact figures, voters "know that tariffs are adding to their pain ... [and] Republicans could pay the price in November." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.1%Matthew Chapman: 7.5%Rawstory: 7.8%Confirmation Bias17.1%This article: 10.4%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias10.4%This article: 7.9%Matthew Chapman: 4.1%Rawstory: 4.6%Availability Heuristic7.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.7%Rawstory: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 34.1%Matthew Chapman: 17.2%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect34.1%This article: 1.5%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion1.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 36.6%Matthew Chapman: 2.9%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias36.6%This article: 64.0%Matthew Chapman: 22.8%Rawstory: 21.9%Negativity Bias64.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 23.2%Matthew Chapman: 3.4%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error23.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.4%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.5%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.9%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 3.9%Appeal to Authority7.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 3.9%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.9%Matthew Chapman: 10.2%Rawstory: 12.0%Hasty Generalization4.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 13.1%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon13.1%This article: 7.3%Matthew Chapman: 7.9%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion7.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 3.5%Rawstory: 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.4%Matthew Chapman: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.6%Burden of Proof6.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.0%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 23.5%Matthew Chapman: 3.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)23.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 23.2%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading23.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.9%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 5.5%Unattributed Quote7.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.4%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 34.5%Matthew Chapman: 16.7%Rawstory: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice34.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.9%Rawstory: 3.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.3%Rawstory: 7.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.5%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

328 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker75%attributed speech82writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 56 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 76 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 26 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Wall Street Journal

100%flagged-word coverage
246 attributed words100% of attributed speech50% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.6 ptsWriter: 43.9%Wall Street Journal: 31.3%31.3%Unattributed Quote+10.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Wall Street Journal: 10.6%10.6%

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.