Graham Platner's wife bites back after his sexts to other women are revealed and claims they have a great marriage as she talks about infertility struggle ⁠67%

By Emma Richter⁠49%

5/31/2026, 5:41:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 45.8% saturation with 268 hits. Analysis detected 1,524 faulty-reasoning hits from 585 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠67% (7,364 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.40% of the article peer group.

The wife of a Maine Democratic Senate candidate has hit back after news broke that her husband had sent sexually explicit messages to other women. 
On Saturday, it was revealed that Graham Platner's wife, Amy Gertner, found that her partner had sent the inappropriate messages to at least a dozen women while the couple was trying to conceive a child through in vitro fertilization (IVF). 
But later that evening, Gertner, who has been married to Platner since 2023, called those reports 'really shameful' - despite disclosing the information herself to Genevieve McDonald, who was Platner's political director until October, The New York Times reported. 
'I wanted to make a statement today about a couple of news articles that are out there about my marriage to Graham,' the 41-year-old said in a video that the politician shared to his campaign page on X. 
'So it makes me really angry, disappointed, and I find it really shameful that there's a group of media outlets and people who are willing to spread gossip, instead of talking about real issues that Graham is running on, like healthcare and education and childcare,' Gertner continued. 
She went on to insist that she and her husband have a 'great marriage' and that they have been struggling with infertility. 
'Graham and I have a great marriage. 
Being married is hard. 
Being newly married is hard. 
Being newly married and going through infertility is hard. 
'Being newly married, going through infertility, and a Senate campaign is hard. 
I don’t even know if I have the right words to describe what we’ve been going through,' she added. 
Gertner further revealed that the couple has been getting help from a marriage counselor and each of their personal therapists. 
'And we work on our mental health every day. 
No marriage is perfect and I don't want a perfect marriage, I want my marriage, and I want to be married to Graham,' she added. 
Gertner continued: 'I admire the f*** out of him. 
So when there are news article about our marriage, it's just extra sh****. 
Can I say that online? 
I hope I can. 
'So I think I'm feeling angry today and I don't normally make public statements, but it's really important for me to tell all of your out there, especially people who are voting in Maine, that I think it's shameful behavior to spend time, and energy and resources on negative ads and negative stories on Graham when all he's trying to do is improve the lives of people who work for a living.' 
Her comments come after news broke that Gertner told his McDonald about the scandal last year. 
Gertner considered McDonald a friend and told her the information right before Platner was supposed to join a rally with Sanders over Labor Day weekend as she feared it might become a liability, according to The Wall Street Journal. 
In the profile picture from Platner's Kik account viewed by the Daily Mail, he was wearing only a towel while taking a bare chested photo in the bathroom. 
Platner's face was not featured in the image, but his tattoos were visible and the Democratic candidate's public profile featured his full name. 
However, Platner's Totenkopf ink, which is widely recognized as a Nazi symbol, was obscured by his hand. 
He has since covered up the tattoo. 
Breaking news, updated to follow.. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 1.7%Daily Mail: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Emma Richter: 3.1%Daily Mail: 2.8%Availability Heuristic10.3%This article: 3.9%Emma Richter: 0.7%Daily Mail: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic3.9%This article: 1.2%Emma Richter: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 1.4%Daily Mail: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Emma Richter: 5.9%Daily Mail: 6.9%Framing Effect8.7%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.3%Emma Richter: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.5%Status Quo Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Emma Richter: 2.5%Daily Mail: 2.1%Optimism Bias5.3%This article: 1.5%Emma Richter: 1.0%Daily Mail: 1.1%Pessimism Bias1.5%This article: 45.8%Emma Richter: 14.9%Daily Mail: 10.9%Negativity Bias45.8%This article: 26.8%Emma Richter: 2.0%Daily Mail: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias26.8%This article: 6.7%Emma Richter: 1.0%Daily Mail: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error6.7%This article: 6.7%Emma Richter: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 1.6%Daily Mail: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.7%Daily Mail: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Emma Richter: 2.0%Daily Mail: 5.0%Halo Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.5%Emma Richter: 2.1%Daily Mail: 1.7%Recency Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 1.8%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.0%Emma Richter: 3.2%Daily Mail: 3.0%Appeal to Authority19.0%This article: 12.3%Emma Richter: 1.3%Daily Mail: 0.9%False Dilemma12.3%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 1.7%Daily Mail: 3.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 10.3%Emma Richter: 1.5%Daily Mail: 0.4%Red Herring10.3%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 24.6%Emma Richter: 10.2%Daily Mail: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion24.6%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.7%Emma Richter: 2.1%Daily Mail: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.7%This article: 6.7%Emma Richter: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.1%Tu Quoque6.7%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.9%Emma Richter: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature2.9%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 1.7%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.9%Emma Richter: 1.9%Daily Mail: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.3%Emma Richter: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Middle Ground4.3%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.5%Emma Richter: 1.9%Daily Mail: 3.3%Unattributed Quote6.5%This article: 5.3%Emma Richter: 1.8%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection5.3%This article: 18.3%Emma Richter: 9.5%Daily Mail: 8.9%Biased Writer Voice18.3%This article: 12.3%Emma Richter: 1.7%Daily Mail: 1.0%Indoctrination12.3%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Richter: 0.1%Daily Mail: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

585 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker48%attributed speech307writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 38 words • 100.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Gertner • 72 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Amy Gertner

82%flagged-word coverage
278 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.9 ptsWriter: 34.9%Amy Gertner: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+25.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Amy Gertner: 25.9%25.9%Unattributed Quote+13.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Amy Gertner: 13.7%13.7%Quote-first Misdirection-10.1 ptsWriter: 10.1%Amy Gertner: 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.