Raw Story⁠97%

'Dark': Shock as right-wing paper scrambling to defend manufactured Mamdani hoax ⁠65%

By Matthew Chapman⁠95%

8/3/2026, 6:04:13 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 45% saturation with 130 hits. Analysis detected 903 faulty-reasoning hits from 289 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠65% (10,995 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.10% of the article peer group.

The New York Post has been accused of publishing a hoax story about New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani , then retroactively trying to make the story seem real when they got caught. 
According to Judd Legum of Popular Information, last week the Post "published a fake cover story claiming 'thousands' of 9/11 families were trying to ban Mamdani from the 25th anniversary ceremony at Ground Zero." 
Then, after being called out, the Post "assigned 10 REPORTERS to track down more 9/11 families who want Mamdani banned. 
They are now up to 10 people. 
The last I’ve checked, that’s not 'thousands.'" 
As all of this unfolded, Legum noted, "a group representing 250 family members of 9/11 victims has condemned the effort to ban Mamdani. 
The Post dismisses them as a 'far-left group… trying to silence 9/11 families.'" 
The whole affair earned an explosion of outrage from commenters on social media. 
" So dark — the @nypost invented a story about 'thousands' of 9/11 families telling @NYCMayor Zohran to 'stay away' from the anniversary ceremony… then tried to cover it up when they got called out. 
(After others picked it up)" wrote The Tennessee Holler. 
"Wild story. 
The 'thousands of 9/11 families' storyline looks like a feejee mermaid," wrote Semafor reporter David Weigel. 
"The NY Post got hoaxed and reported that 'thousands' of 9/11 families had signed a petition against Mamdani," wrote Drop Site News' Ryan Grim. 
"After the hoax was exposed, they assigned a huge team of reporters to manufacture the fake story they already published and try to make it retroactively true. 
The crack team of reporters is up to ten 9/11 families. 
Just 1,990 to go!" 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 43.6%Matthew Chapman: 7.1%Rawstory: 7.9%Confirmation Bias43.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.8%Matthew Chapman: 3.6%Rawstory: 4.1%Availability Heuristic21.8%This article: 2.4%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.4%This article: 9.3%Matthew Chapman: 1.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Hindsight Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.5%Rawstory: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Matthew Chapman: 16.3%Rawstory: 12.4%Framing Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.7%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 45.0%Matthew Chapman: 21.8%Rawstory: 20.4%Negativity Bias45.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 3.0%Rawstory: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Matthew Chapman: 1.9%Rawstory: 2.4%In-Group Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Matthew Chapman: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.6%Recency Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Matthew Chapman: 6.0%Rawstory: 5.7%Ad Hominem8.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.2%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 3.5%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.7%Rawstory: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 26.0%Matthew Chapman: 9.5%Rawstory: 10.7%Hasty Generalization26.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 12.1%Matthew Chapman: 7.6%Rawstory: 8.8%Appeal to Emotion12.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 16.3%Matthew Chapman: 3.2%Rawstory: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 20.8%Matthew Chapman: 1.2%Rawstory: 1.6%Burden of Proof20.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.3%Matthew Chapman: 3.5%Rawstory: 3.4%Anecdotal17.3%This article: 4.5%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.2%No True Scotsman4.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.7%Rawstory: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.4%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity2.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.9%Matthew Chapman: 4.2%Rawstory: 4.9%Unattributed Quote14.9%This article: 12.1%Matthew Chapman: 4.1%Rawstory: 3.8%Quote-first Misdirection12.1%This article: 27.0%Matthew Chapman: 15.3%Rawstory: 14.1%Biased Writer Voice27.0%This article: 0.7%Matthew Chapman: 1.7%Rawstory: 3.0%Indoctrination0.7%This article: 4.5%Matthew Chapman: 6.4%Rawstory: 7.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.5%This article: 3.8%Matthew Chapman: 2.2%Rawstory: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

289 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers41%attributed speech170writer words
Selected voice

The New York Post

100%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words11% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%The New York Post: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-45.9 ptsWriter: 45.9%The New York Post: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-20.6 ptsWriter: 20.6%The New York Post: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-11.8 ptsWriter: 11.8%The New York Post: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%The New York Post: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.2 ptsWriter: 1.2%The New York 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.