Taylor Swift fans buy up wedding trash gathered outside venue and sold online 18%

By Owen Scott0%

7/8/2026, 11:05:43 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Quote-first Misdirection, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 50.4% saturation with 214 hits. Analysis detected 442 faulty-reasoning hits from 425 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.5% and a BS Rank of 18% (16,794 of 20,370 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.40% of the article peer group.

Taylor Swift fans are buying up trash left outside the pop star’s gargantuan wedding celebrations last week. 
Swift tied the knot with football player Travis Kelce in a huge ceremony at Madison Square Garden on July 3, with the Empire State Building lighting up blue for the occasion. 
Now, cigarette butts, bottle caps and even an ovulation test kit collected near the wedding venue have gone on sale. 
Justin Gignac, who collects trash on the streets of New York City and sells it, says on his website that he hand-picked the items himself. 
Sold under the title “NYC Pocket Garbage: Not Invited Edition (Taylor & Travis’ Wedding),” the products were listed for as much as $25. 
According to Gignac, the items include straws, one lone AirPod, a ring pop, a rainbow fan, utensils and caution tape, as well as the ovulation test kit. 
However, Gignac says that shoppers will not be able to make requests and that items will be “randomly” selected by him. 
“Sorry, no requests - only telepathy,” he continues. 
“Use your crystals, totems, and vision boards to manifest the one you want.” 
In the listing, Gignac described the items as being taken from “as close to Taylor & Travis' big day as you could've gotten without an invitation”. 
Gignac, who runs the TikTok account @newyorkcitygarbage, also shared a video of himself dressed in a tuxedo, brandishing a litter picker, while holding a black trash bag in his other hand. 
“Did people think I was a wedding guest who decided to clean up the streets after leaving the party? 
Yes, yes, they did,” he wrote on his webpage. 
According to TMZ, a bag of air collected at the wedding also went on sale on eBay for $49,999.99. 
Although nonsense, the item has been viewed more than 200 times. 
Swift’s wedding on July 3 was attended by stars including Jessica Alba, Adam Sandler, Graham Norton and Lena Dunham. 
Two attendees told NBC News that Swift and Kelce personally wrote their own vows, with the former’s even including some singing. 
“You would think the bride would be the one crying more, but it was actually Travis that was more emotional,” one of the attendees said. 
The two guests also said that music legends Paul McCartney and Stevie Nicks also performed during the celebrations. 
Attendees were also invited to play games, which would allow them to win tickets to be submitted into a raffle. 
Prizes included designer bags and a 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.6%Owen Scott: 1.6%The Independent: 3.9%Confirmation Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.3%The Independent: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.6%The Independent: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.4%The Independent: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Owen Scott: 5.5%The Independent: 8.1%Framing Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.7%The Independent: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.5%The Independent: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Owen Scott: 8.4%The Independent: 9.9%Negativity Bias2.6%This article: 2.1%Owen Scott: 2.4%The Independent: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias2.1%This article: 5.9%Owen Scott: 1.1%The Independent: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error5.9%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Owen Scott: 2.2%The Independent: 1.4%In-Group Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.8%The Independent: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Owen Scott: 1.3%The Independent: 2.6%Halo Effect8.7%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.7%The Independent: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.6%The Independent: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.9%The Independent: 1.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 4.4%The Independent: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.6%Owen Scott: 2.3%The Independent: 4.0%Hasty Generalization2.6%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.1%Owen Scott: 5.9%The Independent: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion3.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 3.2%The Independent: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.5%The Independent: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 5.9%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature5.9%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.8%The Independent: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.5%The Independent: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 7.3%Owen Scott: 2.8%The Independent: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection7.3%This article: 1.9%Owen Scott: 3.1%The Independent: 6.4%Biased Writer Voice1.9%This article: 3.1%Owen Scott: 1.6%The Independent: 0.7%Indoctrination3.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.9%The Independent: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 50.4%Owen Scott: 1.3%The Independent: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…50.4%

425 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers39%attributed speech258writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageJustin Gignac • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageJustin Gignac • 27 words • 100.0% coverageJustin Gignac • 21 words • 100.0% coverageJustin Gignac • 8 words • 100.0% coverageJustin Gignac • 13 words • 100.0% coverageJustin Gignac • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageJustin Gignac • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJustin Gignac • 9 words • 100.0% coverageTMZ • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Justin Gignac

87%flagged-word coverage
148 attributed words89% of attributed speech60% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +53.1 ptsWriter: 28.7%Justin Gignac: 81.8%81.8%Quote-first Misdirection-12.0 ptsWriter: 12.0%Justin Gignac: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+8.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Justin Gignac: 8.8%8.8%Biased Writer Voice+5.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Justin Gignac: 5.4%5.4%

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.