They’re not even trying to hide it anymore..
Credibility score: 40/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "They’re not even trying to hide it anymore.." and rated it 40/100 for credibility (a BS score of 60/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-23. Its weakest claim — "Michelle Obama's list of accomplishments for the Obama administration, including a peace prize." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as cherry-picked. 5 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 5 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 4 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
The Obama Center ceremony starts with a 'stolen land' acknowledgement, presented with a dramatic, almost mocking tone. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:00
The host sets up the 'stolen land acknowledgement' with an 'Oh my god, let me see this' — priming the audience for a negative reaction. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses an exasperated, almost mocking tone ('Oh my god, let me see this') when introducing the land acknowledgement. This isn't a neutral presentation; it's designed to elicit a specific, likely negative, emotional response from the audience before the acknowledgement even plays. It frames the acknowledgement as something ridiculous or over-the-top, rather than a standard practice.
Original quote: “Well, anyway, the Obama Center ceremony begins with a stolen land acknowledgement. Oh my god, let me see this.”
Speaker, identifying as Cherokee, calls land acknowledgements 'obnoxious' and 'pandering,' questioning their necessity. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:20
Using 'as a Cherokee Indian' to dismiss land acknowledgements as 'obnoxious pandering' is a classic 'I'm one of them, so I can say it' move. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker leverages their self-identified Cherokee heritage to dismiss land acknowledgements as 'obnoxious' and 'pandering.' This uses an emotional appeal and a perceived 'insider' perspective to validate a strong, negative opinion, rather than offering a reasoned argument. It's designed to shut down counter-arguments by implying authenticity and shared experience, even though other Indigenous people might hold different views.
Original quote: “I don't even know what to say. As a Cherokee Indian, half it the stolen land [ __ ] so obnoxious, it's like pandering. Remember what happened to your ancestors? Yeah, exactly. Like, do you really need to remind them that they lost all their [ __ ] every [ __ ] time”
Michelle Obama's list of accomplishments for the Obama administration, including a peace prize. — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 0:30
Listing achievements without mentioning any criticisms or failures is a classic highlight reel move. Conveniently omits the drone strikes and Guantanamo. 😬
Why this score: The clip shows Michelle Obama listing a series of positive achievements of the Obama administration, such as 'rescuing our economy,' 'expanding healthcare,' 'ending a war,' 'ordering the Bin Laden raid,' and 'winning a peace prize.' While these events did occur, presenting only the positive aspects without acknowledging any controversies, criticisms, or less successful policies (like the continued use of drone warfare, or the failure to close Guantanamo Bay) is a form of cherry-picking. It creates a one-sided narrative that paints a picture of unblemished success, which is rarely the full…
Original quote: “Uh, Hillary Clinton cracks up after Michelle Obama. What is this here? >> You were doing the people's work. rescuing our economy, expanding healthcare, ending a war, ordering the Bin Laden raid, winning a peace prize, >> keeping us safe.”
Listing Obama's achievements, including a peace prize, with a clip of Hillary Clinton laughing. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:30
The video splices Obama's achievements with Hillary Clinton's laugh, implying a connection that isn't there. Classic cut-and-paste job. ✂️
Why this score: The clip lists Obama's accomplishments, including 'winning a peace prize,' which is a factual event. However, the video edits this with Hillary Clinton's laughter, creating a misleading association. The laughter is from a different context, making the juxtaposition a rhetorical trick to undermine the achievements listed. Commenters also picked up on the 'peace prize' given his war record, which adds another layer of irony the video is playing on.
Original quote: “Uh, Hillary Clinton cracks up after Michelle Obama. What is this here? >> You were doing the people's work. rescuing our economy, expanding healthcare, ending a war, ordering the Bin Laden raid, winning a peace prize,”
Claiming the building is a 'reminder of Chicago's very own first' without specifying what 'first' it is. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:30
A 'first' what? First ugly building? First building shaped like a hand? They left out the crucial detail. 🤨
Why this score: The statement claims the building is a 'reminder of Chicago's very own first' but fails to specify what 'first' it refers to. This omission of context leaves the audience guessing and prevents any meaningful understanding or verification of the claim. It's a vague boast.
Original quote: “Now this building stands as a reminder of Chicago's very own first.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →