BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 66.7% saturation with 142 hits. Analysis detected 797 faulty-reasoning hits from 213 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.3% and a BS Rank of 88% (2,083 of 16,138 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.10% of the article peer group.

On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Nominee Jay Clayton repeatedly refused to say whether Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. 
At today's confirmation hearing, Clayton also defended Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund. 
Additionally, Clayton refused to come clean on his extraordinary subpoenas of New York Times journalists for reporting something the administration didn’t like as well as Trump’s efforts to interfere in Georgia’s elections. 
Demand Progress led a coalition of press freedom and progressive advocates who urged Senate Democrats to oppose Clayton’s nomination. 
The following is a statement from Demand Progress Executive Director Sean Vitka: 
“Jay Clayton’s assignment today was to show that he wouldn’t be a submissive hatchet man for Donald Trump  and he failed spectacularly. 
Clayton’s trainwreck hearing showed us that he is willing to deny objective reality to avoid upsetting the president. 
Someone like that must not be allowed to be the Director of National Intelligence, who wields vast power and must lead the Intelligence Community with nonpartisan integrity and independence from political pressure. 
As Congress barrels toward another fight over FISA surveillance powers, we hope Democrats like Sen. 
Mark Warner and Rep. 
Jim Himes understand the clear danger someone like Clayton would pose as Trump’s pointman on government surveillance.” 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
31.5%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
10.8%
Negativity Bias
66.7%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
8.5%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
8.9%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
7%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
18.8%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
8.9%
False Dilemma
15%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
15%
Bandwagon
8.9%
Appeal to Emotion
39.4%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
8.5%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
10.8%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
27.2%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
10.8%
Biased Writer Voice
43.7%
Indoctrination
33.8%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

213 words analyzed.

Analysis

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