Max Miller Agrees Allegations Are ‘Troubling,’ Admits He’s on T in Strange CNN Interview ⁠7%

By Nicole LaFond⁠74%

8/4/2026, 4:11:49 PM

Topics: Politics
Keywords: Editors Blog

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Quote-first Misdirection, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.1% saturation with 17 hits. Analysis detected 51 faulty-reasoning hits from 53 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 16% and a BS Rank of ⁠7% (27,436 of 29,339 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.50% of the article peer group.

I break down some of the details in tonight’s edition of Where Things Stand here. 
It’s the third item in tonight’s newsletter, so just wanted to flag it. 
It was strange. 
Here’s a link to the interview in full. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 6.6%Talking Points Memo: 4.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.5%Talking Points Memo: 2.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.3%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.7%Talking Points Memo: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 26.4%Nicole LaFond: 8.0%Talking Points Memo: 9.4%Framing Effect26.4%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.3%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 0.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Nicole LaFond: 1.7%Talking Points Memo: 2.1%Pessimism Bias5.7%This article: 32.1%Nicole LaFond: 13.5%Talking Points Memo: 11.5%Negativity Bias32.1%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 2.6%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 2.2%Talking Points Memo: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.7%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 2.2%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 4.8%Talking Points Memo: 2.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 2.7%Talking Points Memo: 0.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.9%Talking Points Memo: 2.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.7%Talking Points Memo: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.7%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 4.4%Talking Points Memo: 4.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 5.9%Talking Points Memo: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 3.1%Talking Points Memo: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.8%Talking Points Memo: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.5%Talking Points Memo: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 2.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 3.1%Talking Points Memo: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 26.4%Nicole LaFond: 1.3%Talking Points Memo: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection26.4%This article: 5.7%Nicole LaFond: 13.9%Talking Points Memo: 12.1%Biased Writer Voice5.7%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.5%Talking Points Memo: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 6.7%Talking Points Memo: 7.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.6%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

53 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker26%attributed speech39writer words
Selected voice

Max Miller

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words100% of attributed speech7.7% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Max Miller: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Max Miller: 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.