CBC Radio⁠49%

How did Nike lose its grip? ⁠85%

By Paul Haavardsrud⁠0%

5/3/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 47.4% saturation with 27 hits. Analysis detected 245 faulty-reasoning hits from 57 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76% and a BS Rank of ⁠85% (3,482 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.10% of the article peer group.

These days, shoe stores carry all sorts of new and old brands. 
From Hoka to On and Adidas to ASICS. 
Ha! 
Nike used to laugh at that competition. 
But not anymore. 
We talk to New York Times reporter Kim Bhasin about how Nike slipped, and if it can regain its grip. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 35.1%Paul Haavardsrud: 4.2%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias35.1%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 15.9%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 35.1%Paul Haavardsrud: 9.3%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic35.1%This article: 14.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 1.7%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic14.0%This article: 12.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 3.0%CBC: 1.0%Hindsight Bias12.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 1.5%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 45.6%Paul Haavardsrud: 46.5%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect45.6%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 10.8%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 35.1%Paul Haavardsrud: 4.2%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias35.1%This article: 17.5%Paul Haavardsrud: 8.3%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias17.5%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 2.8%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 3.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 26.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 3.2%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias26.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 35.1%Paul Haavardsrud: 24.2%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority35.1%This article: 5.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 5.9%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma5.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.1%Paul Haavardsrud: 8.7%CBC: 4.8%Hasty Generalization21.1%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 2.8%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 13.8%CBC: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion14.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 1.7%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 35.1%Paul Haavardsrud: 4.2%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof35.1%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 26.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 5.9%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal26.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.5%Paul Haavardsrud: 6.6%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.5%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 5.3%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 1.5%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote12.3%This article: 1.8%Paul Haavardsrud: 5.9%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection1.8%This article: 47.4%Paul Haavardsrud: 40.6%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice47.4%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 2.8%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 2.8%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 5.3%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

57 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers47%attributed speech30writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageNike • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageKim Bhasin • 20 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kim Bhasin

100%flagged-word coverage
20 attributed words74% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+76.7 ptsWriter: 23.3%Kim Bhasin: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Kim Bhasin: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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