BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Recency Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.2% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 331 faulty-reasoning hits from 262 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.8% and a BS Rank of 65% (10,791 of 30,477 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.60% of the article peer group.

Pentagon officials have finally named the suspected leaker behind the security capabilities of the new Air Force One that was adopted shortly after President Donald Trump retook office. 
The Department of War says that former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall leaked vital national security information to a media outlet, and as a result, revoked his access to sensitive material and his ability to obtain a position with clearance in the future. 
The media outlet in question appears to be the New York Times, which previously reported that the new iteration of Air Force One “lacked the advanced antimissile capabilities of its predecessor,” according to CBS News. 
Kendall, who served under President Joe Biden, believes that his comments about Air Force One’s defense systems are not classified and is reportedly “mystified” that officials have stripped him of his clearance. 
CBS has further reported that, when President Donald Trump took a trip to Turkey for a NATO summit, defense officials discovered a credible threat against Trump’s life in an Iranian plot to launch a missile at his aircraft. 
Trump’s return flight took place on an alternate aircraft as a result of plot. 
The new iteration of Air Force One is now undergoing further upgrades to increase defense capabilities. 
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? 
Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. 
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.7%Joe Chalfant: 2.9%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias10.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.2%Joe Chalfant: 13.4%Townhall: 9.8%Framing Effect12.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%Joe Chalfant: 10.1%Townhall: 13.0%Negativity Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 3.9%Townhall: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Joe Chalfant: 9.2%Townhall: 4.2%In-Group Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 3.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 3.7%Townhall: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 2.0%Townhall: 1.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.5%Joe Chalfant: 3.9%Townhall: 1.2%Recency Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 2.0%Townhall: 5.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 6.5%Joe Chalfant: 4.4%Townhall: 1.9%Straw Man6.5%This article: 13.4%Joe Chalfant: 3.6%Townhall: 3.8%Appeal to Authority13.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.2%Joe Chalfant: 14.3%Townhall: 9.1%Hasty Generalization17.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.0%Joe Chalfant: 2.8%Townhall: 10.3%Appeal to Emotion5.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 2.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 1.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 2.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 10.5%Townhall: 15.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 6.5%Joe Chalfant: 4.8%Townhall: 5.0%Indoctrination6.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Joe Chalfant: 13.0%Townhall: 13.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.5%This article: 10.3%Joe Chalfant: 16.4%Townhall: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.3%

262 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.