Maine voters, once loyal to Platner, abandon him after sexual assault allegation ⁠40%

By Praveena Somasundaram⁠0%

7/7/2026, 9:19:57 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Status Quo Bias, and Indoctrination, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 48.8% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 214 faulty-reasoning hits from 80 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45% and a BS Rank of ⁠40% (13,223 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.40% of the article peer group.

To Katie Herklotz, backing Graham Platner in his U.S. 
Senate bid has felt like being stuck on a “roller coaster” for nearly a year. 
In 2020, after Republican Sen. 
Susan Collins won a fifth consecutive term to the Maine seat, Herklotz thought the state was ready for someone new. 
“We just need a progressive lobsterman to run against her,” Herklotz, who works in insurance, remembered telling her friends. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 3.7%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias15.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 1.7%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Praveena Somasundaram: 9.4%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic18.8%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 2.3%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.8%Praveena Somasundaram: 43.7%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect23.8%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 25.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 2.4%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias25.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 2.6%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 11.8%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias15.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 1.3%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 5.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 7.9%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 10.0%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 23.8%Praveena Somasundaram: 7.5%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma23.8%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 48.8%Praveena Somasundaram: 15.3%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization48.8%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.6%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 6.5%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 14.2%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 4.1%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.6%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 23.8%Praveena Somasundaram: 2.9%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote23.8%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 5.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 33.8%Praveena Somasundaram: 33.3%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice33.8%This article: 25.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 5.4%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination25.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 27.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

80 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker24%attributed speech61writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageKatie Herklotz • 19 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Katie Herklotz

100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words100% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Katie Herklotz: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-44.3 ptsWriter: 44.3%Katie Herklotz: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-32.8 ptsWriter: 32.8%Katie Herklotz: 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.