CBS News98%

Trump says he's "losing faith" in ability to make a deal with Iran #shorts 90%

7/31/2026, 6:28:19 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 32.6% saturation with 91 hits. Analysis detected 620 faulty-reasoning hits from 279 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80% and a BS Rank of 90% (2,559 of 25,385 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 89.90% of the video peer group.

What is the status of talks? Who who in 
from the administration is talking to the Iranians? 
>> but they break their word so often. 
Steve is talking, Jared. 
We have very good people. JD's involved, very strongly involved. 
Uh we have great people talking. Marco's involved. 
>> Cuz they say talks aren't happening. 
>> people. We have the best people, but uh they'll make a deal. As an example, 
we'll talk about nuclear. And we'll be in there talking about nuclear for 7 hours. 
I say, "What is it What do you need 7? You could take 10 minutes. You have 5 minutes." He says, 
"But 7 hours." And then they'll go out and I'll say, "They discussed nuclear." And they'll go out and they'll say, "We never discussed nuclear." 
And I say, "Why why did they say that?" 
All they do is make me angry, you know? 
They just make me angry. Uh any other questions? 
>> Do you believe that you can reach a deal with Iran given that you talked about how dishonest they are? How disloyal they are? 
>> I'm losing faith in them because they do lie 
and do they do misrepresent. Well, the other day the five missiles were shot. 
We knocked them down, but we were in the midst of a negotiation. 
I mean, I'm waiting for Steve to call me. How's the negotiation going? 
And instead I got a call from Pete that they just shot five missiles at one of our bases in Jordan. We have bases in Jordan. 
Fortunately, our people operated the equipment 
Confirmation Bias
9%
Anchoring Bias
2.9%
Availability Heuristic
17.2%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
5.7%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
5.7%
Pessimism Bias
3.6%
Negativity Bias
27.2%
Self-Serving Bias
7.9%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
3.6%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
2.9%
Halo Effect
8.6%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
9.3%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
5.7%
False Dilemma
9%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
9.3%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
15.8%
Begging the Question
12.2%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
5%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
3.6%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
32.6%
No True Scotsman
9%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
16.5%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

279 words analyzed.

Analysis

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