BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 64.6% saturation with 421 hits. Analysis detected 2,483 faulty-reasoning hits from 652 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.1% and a BS Rank of 74% (5,737 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.80% of the article peer group.

The rise and fall of Graham Platner, who has just withdrawn from the U.S. 
Senate race in Maine in which he was challenging Republican incumbent Susan Collins, makes one think of a fairy tale or myth in which a character of humble status is suddenly elevated to wealth and high status by some magical entity but is led astray by character flaws such as greed or hubris and is just as precipitously hurled back into lowly obscurity. 
In Graham’s case, the magical entities were progressive political operatives Dan Moraff, Leanne Fan and Moritz Katz, who thought they had found the Great White Male : A 41-year-old oyster farmer and Marine veteran whose combination of left-wing ideas and macho charisma would finally help the Democrats connect with working-class voters. 
In a political season favourable to the left, Platner became a rising star in the Democratic Party, with some predicting that he was a plausible and perhaps even likely Democratic presidential nominee in 2028. 
He easily won the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat after his main rival, 78-year-old Maine governor Janet Mills, suspended her campaign . 
But Platner’s own campaign was plagued with multiple problems and controversies, mostly related to ghosts from the past: struggles with alcoholism, inflammatory social media posts, a skull-and-bones tattoo associated with Nazi Germany (the “Totenkopf”), and finally increasingly troubling allegations of mistreating women. 
In June, the New York Times published accounts by three women who had dated Graham in the past and mentioned troubling experiences. 
One, Lyndsey Fifield, described low-level physical abuse: being grabbed by the shoulders, yanked by the wrist and, on one occasion, having her arm twisted behind her back and being shoved into a bedroom where Platner allegedly kept her trapped. 
However, the Times said that it “could not independently corroborate Ms. 
Fifield’s account of the altercations,” and Platner’s supporters were quick to seize on the fact that the story identified her as a conservative activist. 
CNN did report that several of Fifield’s friends confirmed that she had talked to them about experiencing physical abuse at Platner’s hands long before he ran for office. 
But Platner hung on—even while rumours swirled of a still-to-be-disclosed sexual assault allegation. 
That allegation dropped on 6 July when Politico published a troubling account by 41-year-old rural Maine resident Jenny Racicot, who had had a two-year casual sexual relationship with Graham. 
Racicot was featured in the earlier Times story, but was quoted only about “reckless” and “unsettling” behaviour; she apparently spoke to the Times reporters about the alleged assault, but only off the record. 
In the Politico interview, she described an alleged incident in late 2021 in which he came over to her house uninvited while drunk, let himself in, and forced himself on her even though she begged him to stop. 
While Racicot said she had deleted the messages in which she allegedly confronted Graham, as well as the ones leading up to his unwanted visit, some corroboration was provided by a man she dated later in 2023, as well as by messages she exchanged the same year with an acquaintance warning her not to get involved with Platner (and strongly implying that something nonconsensual had happened between them). 
After this, Graham quickly became radioactive: Democrats who had endorsed him began to withdraw those endorsements and urge him to drop out. 
Now he’s out, after a defiant video statement denying the allegations and darkly suggesting that they were the result of a conspiracy to get him off the ballot. 
Now, questions abound. 
Is Platner an inspiring candidate undone by his own troubled past, or even by a coordinated political hit—or an egotistical demagogue luckily stopped in his tracks? 
Is his political defenestration a model of how a party should police misconduct in its own ranks, or a scary example of how a mere accusation can destroy a career in a #BelieveWomen climate? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.0%Cathy Young: 4.9%Quillette: 5.9%Confirmation Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.7%Quillette: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.3%Cathy Young: 3.3%Quillette: 3.4%Availability Heuristic23.3%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 2.0%Quillette: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 1.0%Quillette: 1.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 1.0%Quillette: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.1%Cathy Young: 8.1%Quillette: 7.5%Framing Effect18.1%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.7%Quillette: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.6%Quillette: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.0%Quillette: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Cathy Young: 0.3%Quillette: 1.4%Optimism Bias3.5%This article: 20.1%Cathy Young: 1.0%Quillette: 1.4%Pessimism Bias20.1%This article: 64.6%Cathy Young: 12.7%Quillette: 9.3%Negativity Bias64.6%This article: 3.7%Cathy Young: 0.2%Quillette: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias3.7%This article: 3.7%Cathy Young: 1.0%Quillette: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error3.7%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.2%Quillette: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Cathy Young: 2.5%Quillette: 1.8%In-Group Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 1.9%Quillette: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 5.1%Quillette: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.2%Quillette: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.9%Cathy Young: 1.0%Quillette: 1.1%Recency Bias10.9%This article: 5.1%Cathy Young: 0.9%Quillette: 0.7%Primacy Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Cathy Young: 5.2%Quillette: 2.3%Ad Hominem8.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.9%Quillette: 2.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.7%Cathy Young: 3.1%Quillette: 5.4%Appeal to Authority12.7%This article: 9.2%Cathy Young: 1.7%Quillette: 2.9%False Dilemma9.2%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.7%Quillette: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.0%Quillette: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.2%Cathy Young: 5.1%Quillette: 9.1%Hasty Generalization5.2%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.5%Quillette: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.9%Quillette: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 27.5%Cathy Young: 4.7%Quillette: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion27.5%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.4%Quillette: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.9%Cathy Young: 2.5%Quillette: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.9%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.3%Quillette: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.2%Cathy Young: 0.2%Quillette: 0.7%Burden of Proof5.2%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.0%Quillette: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.1%Quillette: 0.7%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 24.1%Cathy Young: 3.0%Quillette: 3.2%Anecdotal24.1%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.7%Cathy Young: 2.7%Quillette: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.7%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.0%Cathy Young: 0.2%Quillette: 0.3%Middle Ground4.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.2%Quillette: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.3%Cathy Young: 0.1%Quillette: 0.2%Special Pleading4.3%This article: 2.1%Cathy Young: 0.8%Quillette: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy2.1%This article: 7.5%Cathy Young: 5.1%Quillette: 2.3%Unattributed Quote7.5%This article: 14.1%Cathy Young: 2.8%Quillette: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection14.1%This article: 62.1%Cathy Young: 17.8%Quillette: 13.8%Biased Writer Voice62.1%This article: 6.4%Cathy Young: 0.9%Quillette: 1.6%Indoctrination6.4%This article: 13.0%Cathy Young: 5.0%Quillette: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias13.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 1.1%Quillette: 1.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cathy Young: 0.1%Quillette: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

652 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers7.7%attributed speech602writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 63 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageLyndsey Fifield • 39 words • 0.0% coverageNew York Times • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 68 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lyndsey Fifield

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words78% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice-67.3 ptsWriter: 67.3%Lyndsey Fifield: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-15.3 ptsWriter: 15.3%Lyndsey Fifield: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-14.1 ptsWriter: 14.1%Lyndsey Fifield: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Lyndsey Fifield: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Lyndsey Fifield: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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