Karoline Leavitt: six key takeaways from 20 months as Trump’s press secretary

Open the full analysis → Read the original article at The Guardian (US) →

⚠️ The Guardian (US) has updated this article since we analyzed it. The findings below describe the version we saw on 2026-08-13 — some quoted phrases may no longer appear in the current article.

Flags are about wording, sourcing and context, not whether it’s true or which side is right. How we check

Wording

19%of the article’s sentences use a rhetorical technique

Tap a technique to see where it’s used.

What these techniques mean

Loaded Language Emotionally charged words that push a reaction instead of giving information.Show the first one ↓

Name Calling A label used to mock or discredit instead of an argument.Show the first one ↓

Appeal to Prejudice Leaning on the reader’s existing dislike of a group.Show the first one ↓

ClaimsCheck the factual claims in this article →

What the model flagged

underlined: technique found; pick one to highlight its words tap a technique for why

“disgraced financier and convicted sex offender”

↓

Loaded Language · “disgraced financier and convicted sex offender”Why ›

The phrase 'disgraced financier and convicted sex offender' uses emotionally charged descriptors that, while factually accurate, are stacked together to maximise negative emotional impact on the reader.

“biased reporter with a leftwing opinion” … “leftwing hack”

↓

Name Calling · “biased reporter with a leftwing opinion”, “leftwing hack”Why ›

The reporter is directly labeled with derogatory terms to discredit them rather than address the substance of their question.

“you and the people of the media who have such biases but fake like you're a journalist”

↑

Appeal to Prejudice · “you and the people of the media who have such biases but fake like you're a journalist”Why ›

Invokes an in-group/out-group distinction by broadly condemning 'people of the media' as biased fakers who are unworthy of their position.

Read the original ↗ · Open the full analysis →

↑ Back to the results

Analyzed 2026-08-13 04:00 UTC. Articles are sometimes updated after publication — if a quote here isn't in the current version, the piece has changed since.

Analyzed automatically with Semblen's fine-tuned model. These are rhetorical techniques, not political tilt — and finding one is not a claim that the article is false. Findings include language the outlet is quoting rather than asserting: we flag techniques wherever they appear, so check each quote against the original. The model has known false positives on strong-but-legitimate language, so treat each finding as a prompt to read closely, not a verdict. How articles are chosen →