Raw Story⁠97%

'Absurd': Fox News columnist aligns with Black Lives Matter to defend Trump ⁠65%

By Kathleen Culliton⁠88%

7/25/2026, 6:00:07 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 28.4% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 566 faulty-reasoning hits from 285 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠65% (11,273 of 31,900 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.70% of the article peer group.

A Fox News columnist efforts to defend President Donald Trump Saturday morning saw him unwittingly align himself with the Black Lives Matter movement. 
Mike Davis, founder of an organization that purports to " fight lawfare " on Trump's behalf, told Fox News readers they should be outraged by police brutality. 
"If a police officer unlawfully beats a suspect without cause and violates his civil rights, that officer should face legal accountability," Davis told conservatives. 
Davis made this call for police accountability as protesters take to the streets in Madison, Wisconsin, where Corey Ruiz was tackled, tased, kicked and fatally shot three times Wednesday. 
While police say Ruiz, 38, pulled a knife, protesters who have taken to the streets contend the force was excessive. 
About 200 protesters marched through Madison Thursday night chanting "Black Lives Matter" and "These killer cops have got to go." 
His weeping mother told the media, "They took my baby from me." 
So why did Davis alert his readers to the problem of police brutality? 
Jack Smith — the special counsel who brought criminal charges against Trump, ahead of his 2025 reelection, on charges he mishandled classified documents and tried overturn the 2020 presidential election. 
"Holding him accountable is not a threat to law enforcement; it is consistent with the rule of law," Davis said of his hypothetical violent officer. 
"The same applies to rogue prosecutors like Smith. 
"He tried and failed to alter the outcome of the 2024 presidential election by prosecuting President Trump across two jurisdictions on two absurd indictments," Davis claimed. 
"It is inconceivable how holding him legally accountable for that conduct would threaten the Justice Department." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.1%Kathleen Culliton: 6.6%Rawstory: 7.9%Confirmation Bias9.1%This article: 10.5%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias10.5%This article: 17.2%Kathleen Culliton: 4.2%Rawstory: 4.1%Availability Heuristic17.2%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias5.6%This article: 16.8%Kathleen Culliton: 11.9%Rawstory: 12.4%Framing Effect16.8%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 28.4%Kathleen Culliton: 17.9%Rawstory: 20.4%Negativity Bias28.4%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.6%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.6%Rawstory: 2.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 5.4%Rawstory: 5.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.5%Kathleen Culliton: 3.4%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority10.5%This article: 8.8%Kathleen Culliton: 2.4%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma8.8%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 9.5%Rawstory: 10.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.2%Kathleen Culliton: 7.8%Rawstory: 8.8%Appeal to Emotion11.2%This article: 4.6%Kathleen Culliton: 1.5%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 3.7%Rawstory: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.6%Kathleen Culliton: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.6%Burden of Proof5.6%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.2%Kathleen Culliton: 3.3%Rawstory: 3.4%Anecdotal10.2%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.1%Kathleen Culliton: 1.5%Rawstory: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.1%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 9.1%Kathleen Culliton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading9.1%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.2%Kathleen Culliton: 4.0%Rawstory: 4.9%Unattributed Quote4.2%This article: 4.6%Kathleen Culliton: 4.4%Rawstory: 3.8%Quote-first Misdirection4.6%This article: 13.3%Kathleen Culliton: 13.5%Rawstory: 14.1%Biased Writer Voice13.3%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.6%Rawstory: 3.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 4.0%Rawstory: 7.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 19.6%Kathleen Culliton: 2.1%Rawstory: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

285 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker44%attributed speech159writer words
Selected voice

Mike Davis

53%flagged-word coverage
126 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice+13.1 ptsWriter: 7.5%Mike Davis: 20.6%20.6%Politically Right Leaning +1.8 ptsWriter: 18.9%Mike Davis: 20.6%20.6%Quote-first Misdirection-8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%Mike Davis: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-7.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%Mike Davis: 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.