Gizmodo57%

Are Those Fake Books on the New Air Force One AI-Generated? 48%

By Matt Novak66%

7/3/2026, 9:20:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 42.3% saturation with 224 hits. Analysis detected 1,305 faulty-reasoning hits from 529 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.1% and a BS Rank of 48% (11,490 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.50% of the article peer group.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted a photo to X on Wednesday from the new Air Force One, a plane gifted to President Donald Trump from the government of Qatar, despite anti-bribery rules intended to stop that kind of transaction. 
Blatant corruption aside, users on social media noticed something weird in the background of the photos of the newly refurbished plane. 
Take a close look at the books behind Leavitt. 
They might be difficult to see, so we’ve blown up part of the image below. 
It’s a bit pixelated since we’ve enlarged the photo. 
But, yes, that really says “Library” on the spines of several books. 
Who doesn’t love that classic book title, “Arts? 
” Such a great novel. 
How about the books on the other side of the shelf? 
Yes, that says “Architecture” several times. 
They appear to be completely fake books with generic titles on the outside. 
Many people wondered whether the image was AI-generated. 
The short answer: It’s complicated. 
Gizmodo ran the image through Google’s Gemini AI chatbot, which can check whether it has the SynthID watermark. 
That watermark was developed by Google and is invisible to the naked eye, but tells you whether it was made using Google’s AI image generation tools. 
It wasn’t. 
However, it doesn’t tell you whether it was made using other AI image generators, meaning there is a possibility this image was created using AI. 
We don’t think it was, however, since there’s very little reason to do that in this case. 
The more likely explanation is that Air Force One now has fake books with terrible, generic titles. 
There are plenty of reasons to remain skeptical when it comes to images released by the Trump administration, however. 
Trump himself posted an image to Truth Social on June 29 that appeared to show a large golden eagle strapped to the White House. 
“A Golden Gift to the White House for its 250th Birthday Year!” 
Trump wrote. 
But the if you run the image through Gemini, it comes back as AI generated. 
It’s unclear what Trump was trying to communicate with the fake image. 
As CNN notes, a freelance photographer took photos of the White House that day which show the eagle isn’t there. 
Trump took the new Air Force One to North Dakota on Wednesday for the grand opening of the new Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library. 
Trump cut the ribbon, gave a weird speech, and also talked with an AI version of Teddy. 
When Trump asked about the Panama Canal, a particular fixation of the late imperial-minded president, the fake Roosevelt acknowledged building it was an accomplishment, but that he was more proud of other domestic achievements. 
Trump is arguably the fakest president we’ve ever had, with his tacky decorations in the Oval Office and his constant stream of lies. 
And while the AI image of an eagle isn’t real, there’s currently no evidence Leavitt’s photo is AI generated. 
So, we’re going to go with the assumption that those books are real. 
Well, they’re fake. 
But you get the idea. 
They’re fake books that exist in the real world. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.5%Matt Novak: 2.4%Gizmodo: 4.1%Confirmation Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.3%Gizmodo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Matt Novak: 2.4%Gizmodo: 3.1%Availability Heuristic1.5%This article: 7.4%Matt Novak: 1.2%Gizmodo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic7.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Matt Novak: 2.5%Gizmodo: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias5.9%This article: 7.6%Matt Novak: 3.3%Gizmodo: 5.5%Framing Effect7.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Matt Novak: 2.5%Gizmodo: 3.9%Optimism Bias3.2%This article: 3.2%Matt Novak: 2.0%Gizmodo: 2.1%Pessimism Bias3.2%This article: 34.0%Matt Novak: 14.2%Gizmodo: 7.5%Negativity Bias34.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Matt Novak: 5.8%Gizmodo: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error8.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.5%Gizmodo: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.7%Gizmodo: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.4%Gizmodo: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.3%Gizmodo: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Matt Novak: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.4%Primacy Effect8.9%This article: 4.5%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias4.5%This article: 4.3%Matt Novak: 5.6%Gizmodo: 1.1%Ad Hominem4.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.1%Gizmodo: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.9%Matt Novak: 3.8%Gizmodo: 4.3%Appeal to Authority14.9%This article: 4.7%Matt Novak: 1.0%Gizmodo: 1.4%False Dilemma4.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.3%Gizmodo: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.3%Matt Novak: 5.5%Gizmodo: 5.3%Hasty Generalization15.3%This article: 3.6%Matt Novak: 1.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Red Herring3.6%This article: 4.3%Matt Novak: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.9%Bandwagon4.3%This article: 7.8%Matt Novak: 3.1%Gizmodo: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion7.8%This article: 3.8%Matt Novak: 2.3%Gizmodo: 1.0%Begging the Question3.8%This article: 4.5%Matt Novak: 4.0%Gizmodo: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.8%Matt Novak: 1.0%Gizmodo: 0.5%Burden of Proof2.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.0%Matt Novak: 1.2%Gizmodo: 2.0%Anecdotal7.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.1%Matt Novak: 3.3%Gizmodo: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.5%Gizmodo: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.8%Matt Novak: 1.2%Gizmodo: 4.6%Unattributed Quote2.8%This article: 2.8%Matt Novak: 0.8%Gizmodo: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection2.8%This article: 42.3%Matt Novak: 25.0%Gizmodo: 13.5%Biased Writer Voice42.3%This article: 6.2%Matt Novak: 1.3%Gizmodo: 1.6%Indoctrination6.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 7.7%Gizmodo: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Matt Novak: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.9%This article: 4.9%Matt Novak: 2.4%Gizmodo: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.9%

529 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers4.2%attributed speech507writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageCNN • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

CNN

100%flagged-word coverage
20 attributed words91% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-44.2 ptsWriter: 44.2%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -8.3 ptsWriter: 8.3%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%CNN: 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.