DOJ drops Reflecting Pool charge, citing ‘botched’ work and contradicting Trump ⁠91%

By Dan Diamond⁠96% Jasmine Golden⁠100%

7/31/2026, 3:46:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Hindsight Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 150 faulty-reasoning hits from 50 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (2,501 of 26,881 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.70% of the article peer group.

Federal prosecutors on Friday moved to drop a criminal charge filed against a former Olympian who had been accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial’s Reflecting Pool, suggesting that the damage was instead due to a “botched” and rushed installation. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 5.3%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 7.9%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 1.4%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 78.0%Dan Diamond: 2.4%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias78.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Dan Diamond: 29.5%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect100.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 2.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 1.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.0%Dan Diamond: 24.9%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias22.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 2.2%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 4.1%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 9.2%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 7.2%The Washington Post: 5.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.4%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 1.9%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 2.5%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 78.0%Dan Diamond: 6.6%The Washington Post: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)78.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 9.6%The Washington Post: 4.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 4.1%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 22.0%Dan Diamond: 32.6%The Washington Post: 15.1%Biased Writer Voice22.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.8%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 6.2%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Diamond: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

50 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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