This Isn't a Hearing. It's a Show Trial. ⁠82%

By Jonathan Cohn⁠16%

7/29/2026, 12:52:31 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 304 faulty-reasoning hits from 52 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠82% (5,234 of 28,846 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.90% of the article peer group.

Jonathan Cohn takes on the Fauci hearing spectacle, where Rand Paul grilled the former NIH chief over newly obtained diaries—and Fauci pled the Fifth. 
Cohn joins MS Now to separate legitimate oversight from what he calls a political show trial aimed at Trump-era vengeance. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 84.6%Jonathan Cohn: 1.0%The Bulwark: 4.9%Confirmation Bias84.6%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 1.3%The Bulwark: 2.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.1%The Bulwark: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.6%The Bulwark: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Jonathan Cohn: 4.1%The Bulwark: 5.8%Framing Effect100.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.5%The Bulwark: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.5%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.2%The Bulwark: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 1.9%The Bulwark: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 61.5%Jonathan Cohn: 3.7%The Bulwark: 9.7%Negativity Bias61.5%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.1%The Bulwark: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 1.3%The Bulwark: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 2.1%The Bulwark: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.6%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.6%The Bulwark: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.6%The Bulwark: 3.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 2.0%The Bulwark: 2.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 38.5%Jonathan Cohn: 0.1%The Bulwark: 1.7%False Dilemma38.5%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.5%The Bulwark: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.8%The Bulwark: 6.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.1%The Bulwark: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 84.6%Jonathan Cohn: 2.1%The Bulwark: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion84.6%This article: 7.7%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.1%Begging the Question7.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 46.2%Jonathan Cohn: 0.3%The Bulwark: 1.8%Anecdotal46.2%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.7%Jonathan Cohn: 0.1%The Bulwark: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 1.1%The Bulwark: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 7.7%Jonathan Cohn: 0.2%The Bulwark: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection7.7%This article: 100.0%Jonathan Cohn: 4.2%The Bulwark: 12.9%Biased Writer Voice100.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 0.9%The Bulwark: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 1.9%The Bulwark: 4.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 46.2%Jonathan Cohn: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias46.2%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Cohn: 2.5%The Bulwark: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

52 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.