RedState⁠96%

Karoline Leavitt Demolishes Media Over New 'Fake News' Story About Trump and Hegseth ⁠94%

By Nick Arama⁠98%

8/6/2026, 1:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Indoctrination, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 54.3% saturation with 190 hits. Analysis detected 1,415 faulty-reasoning hits from 350 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠94% (1,882 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 93.80% of the article peer group.

As we reported, the media were pushing stories about munitions shortages, potentially inhibiting the U.S. in our military action against the Iranian regime. 
But both President Donald Trump and the Pentagon scotched those rumors, saying we had "more than we need." 
But then the Washington Post appeared to try again, with a different spin on the story, claiming President Trump's "frustration" over war "boiled over at Camp David." 
According to the claim, President Trump "demanded answers from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on why he had apparently been misled on extreme munitions shortages" that threatened to limit military options with Iran. 
But the White House wasn't having any of it. 
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt demolished them, saying it "never happened," and she should know because she was there, she said. 
White House Deputy Communications Director Kaelan Dorr also raked the Washington Post over the coals for their claim. 
On top of that, the Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell eviscerated the story. 
It is obviously "sources" who do not mean well (assuming they're even real), because if you have an issue, you enunciate it to officials; you don't run to the media to try to stir things up and potentially hurt the U.S. effort against Iran with such talk. 
This can have national security implications, even if it's false; for example, if Iran decides they can hold out rather than cut a deal because of a story like this. 
It's because the media publish stories like this that people don't have a lot of trust in them and why their credibility is in the toilet. 
They keep trying, but the Trump team isn't going to let them get away with it; they're going to call it out and knock it down. 
Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives. 
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.1%Nick Arama: 9.1%RedState: 6.2%Confirmation Bias25.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Nick Arama: 2.8%RedState: 3.2%Availability Heuristic7.4%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.2%RedState: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.5%RedState: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.8%RedState: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Nick Arama: 6.8%RedState: 8.6%Framing Effect11.4%This article: 4.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion4.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.4%Nick Arama: 1.4%RedState: 1.6%Optimism Bias7.4%This article: 11.1%Nick Arama: 2.3%RedState: 1.6%Pessimism Bias11.1%This article: 36.6%Nick Arama: 19.4%RedState: 13.0%Negativity Bias36.6%This article: 6.3%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 2.8%RedState: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Nick Arama: 5.4%RedState: 4.2%In-Group Bias4.0%This article: 7.7%Nick Arama: 4.6%RedState: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.2%RedState: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.3%RedState: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.1%Nick Arama: 1.3%RedState: 1.1%Recency Bias9.1%This article: 6.6%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.4%Primacy Effect6.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 18.6%Nick Arama: 10.2%RedState: 6.1%Ad Hominem18.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 2.4%RedState: 2.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.3%Nick Arama: 3.0%RedState: 2.9%Appeal to Authority6.3%This article: 7.4%Nick Arama: 2.3%RedState: 2.1%False Dilemma7.4%This article: 8.6%Nick Arama: 1.3%RedState: 1.2%Slippery Slope8.6%This article: 7.4%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning7.4%This article: 19.4%Nick Arama: 13.0%RedState: 9.0%Hasty Generalization19.4%This article: 7.7%Nick Arama: 0.9%RedState: 0.6%Red Herring7.7%This article: 7.4%Nick Arama: 0.9%RedState: 0.8%Bandwagon7.4%This article: 9.1%Nick Arama: 7.8%RedState: 7.7%Appeal to Emotion9.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 2.1%RedState: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.6%Nick Arama: 1.4%RedState: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.3%RedState: 0.7%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 18.6%Nick Arama: 0.8%RedState: 1.0%Burden of Proof18.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.6%Nick Arama: 3.4%RedState: 2.4%Anecdotal6.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.1%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.4%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 6.3%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading6.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.7%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 22.6%Nick Arama: 4.1%RedState: 2.3%Unattributed Quote22.6%This article: 9.1%Nick Arama: 1.9%RedState: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection9.1%This article: 54.3%Nick Arama: 29.8%RedState: 19.3%Biased Writer Voice54.3%This article: 22.9%Nick Arama: 6.6%RedState: 4.4%Indoctrination22.9%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Nick Arama: 22.4%RedState: 14.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias9.4%This article: 8.0%Nick Arama: 5.4%RedState: 3.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.0%

350 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers23%attributed speech271writer words
Selected voice

Washington Post

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words34% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+59.0 ptsWriter: 41.0%Washington Post: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-29.5 ptsWriter: 29.5%Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-29.2 ptsWriter: 29.2%Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -12.2 ptsWriter: 12.2%Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-11.8 ptsWriter: 11.8%Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.3 ptsWriter: 10.3%Washington Post: 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.