WBUR⁠18%

Trump shifts focus from Senate fight and bad polls to Gaza ⁠25%

By Here⁠67% Now Newsroom⁠67%

7/31/2026, 5:02:53 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice and Framing Effect, with Primacy Effect as the most egregious example at 54.7% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 92 faulty-reasoning hits from 64 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠25% (21,291 of 28,081 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.80% of the article peer group.

Trump shifts focus from Senate fight and bad polls to Gaza 
Here & Now's Indira Lakshmanan and Anthony Brooks invite Josh Dawsey and Francesca Chambers to the Friday politics roundtable to talk about where President Trump's focus is with 95 days left until the November elections. 
This segment aired on July 31, 2026. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Here: 2.1%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 5.0%Cognoscenti: 1.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.7%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.6%Cognoscenti: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 34.4%Here: 23.6%Cognoscenti: 3.0%Framing Effect34.4%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.6%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 2.4%Cognoscenti: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.9%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 16.9%Cognoscenti: 3.9%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.5%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.8%Cognoscenti: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.5%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.7%Cognoscenti: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.8%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 6.9%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 54.7%Here: 2.8%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Primacy Effect54.7%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 2.3%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 9.3%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.8%Cognoscenti: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 3.7%Cognoscenti: 2.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.5%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.6%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.5%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.5%Cognoscenti: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 2.3%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.6%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.3%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.2%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 54.7%Here: 20.7%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Biased Writer Voice54.7%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.6%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 7.9%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.8%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

64 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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