Truthout85%

Unpublished DNC Autopsy Chapter Slams “Self-Enriching” Consultants for 2024 Loss 61%

By Brad Reed95%

8/3/2026, 12:08:31 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 25.2% saturation with 115 hits. Analysis detected 1,046 faulty-reasoning hits from 456 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.7% and a BS Rank of 61% (11,689 of 29,351 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.20% of the article peer group.

The New York Times on Monday published what it described as a “missing chapter” of the Democratic National Committee’s widely criticized “autopsy” of the 2024 presidential election. 
The chapter, titled “What Happened in 2024” and provided to the Times by Democratic strategist Paul Rivera, offers criticisms of party consultants who are “self-enriching” and out of touch with the concerns of ordinary voters. 
Specifically, the chapter questions whether Democratic politicians and operatives have a grasp on the economic realities facing most Americans, while calling for “a fundamental re-evaluation” of whether Democrats “really understand the wants and needs of voters.” 
“An emerging critique of Democratic decision-making,” the chapter states, “is there are too many people who have become generationally wealthy off politics and drive too much of the decision-making within the ecosystem. 
This is deeply frustrating to many… who want to try a different set of politics but keep banging their heads up against a system proven to be inflexible and self-enriching.” 
The chapter adds that “many of the people who worked at the highest levels of the party” are “financially secure,” and thus potentially insulated “from the realities many Americans were encountering in their lives.” 
In an interview with the Times, Rivera claimed that he personally handed the missing chapter to DNC Chair Ken Martin in a three-ring binder earlier this year. 
Rivera said he had no specific insight into why the chapter was not included with the report that the DNC released in May. 
“Whether that was a conscious decision on their part to bury the section for the purposes of hiding a paragraph, I don’t know,” the Democratic strategist told the Times. 
“That’s a them question. 
What I can tell you is they had it, and they made a decision not to release it.” 
Martin, however, flatly denied that Rivera had ever personally handed him the chapter. 
“This alleged report section was not in any binder I reviewed,” said Martin in a written statement given to the Times. 
“If we had this in May, we would have released it with the rest of the report.” 
Martin also called it ridiculous to suggest that he would have suppressed a section of the final DNC report to avoid offending the party’s consultant class. 
“If I or the DNC had report materials that went after self-enriching consultants, we absolutely would have included them,” Martin insisted, noting his own past promises “to hold the consultant-industrial complex accountable and ensure the party only pays for work that actually helps us win.” 
The Times report noted that the DNC’s autopsy featured a section titled “What Happened” that was listed as “pending” on the grounds that it “was not provided by author.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.7%Brad Reed: 5.3%Truthout: 5.3%Confirmation Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Brad Reed: 4.1%Truthout: 3.1%Availability Heuristic5.9%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.8%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Brad Reed: 4.1%Truthout: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias5.0%This article: 9.9%Brad Reed: 18.4%Truthout: 9.7%Framing Effect9.9%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.2%Truthout: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.6%Brad Reed: 1.4%Truthout: 0.3%Status Quo Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.3%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Brad Reed: 1.1%Truthout: 0.9%Optimism Bias3.7%This article: 14.3%Brad Reed: 3.4%Truthout: 2.0%Pessimism Bias14.3%This article: 25.2%Brad Reed: 13.2%Truthout: 10.9%Negativity Bias25.2%This article: 18.4%Brad Reed: 3.1%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias18.4%This article: 7.5%Brad Reed: 2.4%Truthout: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error7.5%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.2%Truthout: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 4.4%Truthout: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Brad Reed: 1.3%Truthout: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 1.5%Truthout: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Brad Reed: 0.4%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.9%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Brad Reed: 4.1%Truthout: 1.4%Ad Hominem5.7%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 1.1%Truthout: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.5%Brad Reed: 7.5%Truthout: 3.2%Appeal to Authority14.5%This article: 3.7%Brad Reed: 3.0%Truthout: 1.7%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 2.4%Truthout: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.3%Truthout: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.5%Brad Reed: 12.0%Truthout: 6.7%Hasty Generalization14.5%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 1.4%Truthout: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 11.5%Truthout: 7.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 7.9%Brad Reed: 3.1%Truthout: 1.5%Begging the Question7.9%This article: 6.4%Brad Reed: 0.7%Truthout: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.4%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.9%Brad Reed: 1.0%Truthout: 0.8%Burden of Proof3.9%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.6%Brad Reed: 0.7%Truthout: 0.4%Composition/Division6.6%This article: 7.0%Brad Reed: 2.1%Truthout: 2.5%Anecdotal7.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.3%Truthout: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.0%Brad Reed: 2.6%Truthout: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 9.9%Brad Reed: 0.5%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading9.9%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.9%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.3%Brad Reed: 3.1%Truthout: 1.4%Unattributed Quote12.3%This article: 2.2%Brad Reed: 2.9%Truthout: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection2.2%This article: 2.2%Brad Reed: 7.7%Truthout: 8.2%Biased Writer Voice2.2%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 1.4%Truthout: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 11.3%Truthout: 6.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 1.6%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 2.3%Truthout: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

456 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers49%attributed speech233writer words
Selected voice

Ken Martin

100%flagged-word coverage
122 attributed words55% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Ken Martin: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Ken Martin: 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.