WIRED⁠39%

Tim Heidecker Wants to Turn Infowars Into Adult Swim for the Internet ⁠26%

By Condé Nast⁠0%

7/3/2026, 5:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Primacy Effect, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 55.4% saturation with 31 hits. Analysis detected 93 faulty-reasoning hits from 56 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠26% (22,889 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.80% of the article peer group.

While The Onion fights to officially take over Infowars, it has launched its own parody version in the meantime. 
In June, WIRED’s global editorial director Katie Drummond spoke to comedian Tim Heidecker, the proposed creative director of Infowars, about his vision for the brand. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.9%WIRED: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.2%WIRED: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.8%WIRED: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.5%WIRED: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 55.4%Condé Nast: 3.4%WIRED: 3.3%Framing Effect55.4%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.3%WIRED: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.2%WIRED: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 4.9%WIRED: 5.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.5%WIRED: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.7%WIRED: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 2.3%WIRED: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.5%WIRED: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.7%WIRED: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 21.4%Condé Nast: 0.3%WIRED: 0.2%Primacy Effect21.4%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.5%WIRED: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 2.2%WIRED: 2.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.2%WIRED: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.5%WIRED: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 5.6%WIRED: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.6%WIRED: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 2.6%WIRED: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.3%WIRED: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.7%WIRED: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 2.1%WIRED: 2.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 33.9%Condé Nast: 1.6%WIRED: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)33.9%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.2%WIRED: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.2%WIRED: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.4%WIRED: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.6%WIRED: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 55.4%Condé Nast: 2.3%WIRED: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice55.4%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.7%WIRED: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.9%WIRED: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 2.7%WIRED: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

56 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.