There’s actually very good news behind those ‘job loss’ numbers 84%

By Andrea Widburg96%

8/7/2026, 9:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Politically Right Leaning Bias, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 40.7% saturation with 182 hits. Analysis detected 1,816 faulty-reasoning hits from 447 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.1% and a BS Rank of 84% (4,975 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.70% of the article peer group.

Trump, above all, has promised Americans that he will fix the economy. 
He's a businessman, and he managed to do a spectacular job in his first term until the Democrats weaponized COVID to shut down his roaring economy. 
That's why it matters when headlines announce things like this: 
"July jobs report reveals unexpected loss of 23,000 jobs, missing economists' forecasts" ( CBS News ) 
"The US economy unexpectedly lost 23,000 jobs last month." 
( CNN ) 
"US unexpectedly lost 23,000 jobs in July as slump in growth continues." 
( The Guardian ) 
"U.S. 
Lost 23,000 Jobs in July, While Unemployment Ticked Lower." 
( The Wall Street Journal ) 
With the election looming, it looks as if Trump has lost his mojo on one of the single most important aspects of his presidency: the economy. 
Except, as always, the devil is in the details, and what actually happened is good news for the economy and bad news for Big Government. 
John Hinderaker caught the real story from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. 
(There's no link, so I assume it came to him via an email/newsletter.) 
However: in reality, this is part of an excellent long-term trend, as the Committee to Unleash Prosperity explains: 
The bad news: the economy lost 23,000 jobs in July. 
The good news: 53,000 of them were in government. 
The private sector gained 30,000 jobs. 
We'd call this right-sizing the economy. 
Real working people gained 30,000 jobs. 
People lucky enough to have a high-paying, high-benefit job courtesy of the American taxpayer...well, for 53,000 of them, their luck ran out. 
I would never gloat about an ordinary working person losing a job, because that would be unkind, but looking at the big picture, this is a very good thing for America. 
The reality is that the government doesn't create wealth by offering goods or services that people need. 
In the old days, it provided the background necessary for wealth creation: national security, stable borders, transportation and energy infrastructure, etc. 
The welfare state changed all that-and USAID revealed that, as much as anything, the federal government had become a money laundering agency funding Democrat/socialist interests at home and abroad. 
From staying in the background minding the infrastructure, the U.S. government had turned into a giant vacuum cleaner sucking up working people's and job creators' money. 
It then allocated that money according to algorithms that were (and often still are) hostile to hard-working Americans and very friendly to America haters, illegal aliens, fraudsters, sexual deviants, layabouts, etc. 
Given all that, an honest headline would have said: "July job numbers reveal bloated government shrank while the private sector grew." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.1%Andrea Widburg: 12.4%American Thinker: 9.8%Confirmation Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Andrea Widburg: 3.6%American Thinker: 3.4%Availability Heuristic7.6%This article: 4.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.5%American Thinker: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 5.8%Andrea Widburg: 1.0%American Thinker: 1.2%Hindsight Bias5.8%This article: 2.9%Andrea Widburg: 1.5%American Thinker: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias2.9%This article: 22.8%Andrea Widburg: 5.9%American Thinker: 6.4%Framing Effect22.8%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.8%Andrea Widburg: 0.6%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Andrea Widburg: 0.7%American Thinker: 1.4%Optimism Bias6.3%This article: 10.5%Andrea Widburg: 2.5%American Thinker: 2.3%Pessimism Bias10.5%This article: 40.5%Andrea Widburg: 12.4%American Thinker: 11.5%Negativity Bias40.5%This article: 20.4%Andrea Widburg: 1.5%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias20.4%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 3.1%American Thinker: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Andrea Widburg: 3.2%American Thinker: 3.3%In-Group Bias6.9%This article: 11.9%Andrea Widburg: 5.6%American Thinker: 4.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 2.2%American Thinker: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.5%American Thinker: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.8%Andrea Widburg: 1.5%American Thinker: 1.1%Recency Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.1%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 17.7%Andrea Widburg: 7.4%American Thinker: 5.0%Ad Hominem17.7%This article: 4.7%Andrea Widburg: 4.1%American Thinker: 3.7%Straw Man4.7%This article: 6.5%Andrea Widburg: 4.3%American Thinker: 4.1%Appeal to Authority6.5%This article: 3.8%Andrea Widburg: 4.0%American Thinker: 4.1%False Dilemma3.8%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 3.7%American Thinker: 3.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.9%Andrea Widburg: 16.0%American Thinker: 15.1%Hasty Generalization13.9%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.4%Andrea Widburg: 8.3%American Thinker: 8.0%Appeal to Emotion20.4%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 2.5%American Thinker: 2.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.8%Andrea Widburg: 2.8%American Thinker: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.8%This article: 6.9%Andrea Widburg: 1.6%American Thinker: 0.4%Tu Quoque6.9%This article: 5.6%Andrea Widburg: 3.2%American Thinker: 1.4%Burden of Proof5.6%This article: 4.7%Andrea Widburg: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.4%Appeal to Nature4.7%This article: 1.3%Andrea Widburg: 1.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Composition/Division1.3%This article: 2.9%Andrea Widburg: 2.6%American Thinker: 3.3%Anecdotal2.9%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.5%Andrea Widburg: 2.2%American Thinker: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.5%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.1%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 6.5%Andrea Widburg: 0.6%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading6.5%This article: 6.5%Andrea Widburg: 1.6%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy6.5%This article: 10.3%Andrea Widburg: 2.8%American Thinker: 2.7%Unattributed Quote10.3%This article: 20.6%Andrea Widburg: 2.3%American Thinker: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection20.6%This article: 40.7%Andrea Widburg: 23.6%American Thinker: 20.2%Biased Writer Voice40.7%This article: 11.9%Andrea Widburg: 4.7%American Thinker: 5.3%Indoctrination11.9%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 37.8%Andrea Widburg: 15.0%American Thinker: 14.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias37.8%This article: 4.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.0%

447 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers19%attributed speech360writer words
Selected voice

The Guardian

75%flagged-word coverage
16 attributed words18% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Unattributed Quote+72.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%The Guardian: 75.0%75.0%Quote-first Misdirection+59.7 ptsWriter: 15.3%The Guardian: 75.0%75.0%Biased Writer Voice-50.6 ptsWriter: 50.6%The Guardian: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -46.9 ptsWriter: 46.9%The Guardian: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-14.7 ptsWriter: 14.7%The Guardian: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%The Guardian: 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.