Here's How Apple and Google Helped Keep Graham Platner's Campaign Alive ⁠97%

By Joseph Chalfant⁠97%

7/14/2026, 1:45:43 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 51.3% saturation with 173 hits. Analysis detected 1,313 faulty-reasoning hits from 337 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 94.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠97% (830 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 96.20% of the article peer group.

A new study from the Media Research Center found that Apple and Google did not run any of the highly-scandalous stories involving failed U.S. 
Senate candidate Graham Platner. 
The report revealed that, from November 2025 through May 2026, the aggregation components of both Apple and Google did not run a single story detailing a scandal about Platner’s candidacy, including stories about his Totenkopf tattoo, his dark Reddit history, or exposing when he described himself as a communist. 
“From November through May, Apple News and Google News willfully hid at least 112 significant stories from some of the most widely read right-leaning outlets covering Platner’s scandals, indicating a troubling pattern of intentional censorship,” said Luis Cornelio in the study. 
The Media Research Center further claimed that Apple and Google only ran negative stories about Platner’s history after his disturbing sexting scandal came to light. 
Still, they would not report the totality of the scandals involving Platner when a Fox News poll showed that he would likely be defeated by Republican incumbent Susan Collins in November. 
After it became clear that Platner had no political future, Apple and Google boosted 12 stories about Platner’s scandals between July 7 and 8. 
Apple News and Google News ran a protection racket for Graham Platner,” said Media Research Center President David Bozell. 
“For months, while Platner looked like the one Democrat who could beat Susan Collins, the two most powerful news apps in America buried scandal after scandal. 
Then the polls turned, Platner became a liability, and suddenly the blackout ended. 
News judgment had nothing to do with it. 
Millions of smartphone users were denied the truth while Platner was politically useful and finally allowed to see it once he wasn’t.” 
Google responded to their controversial practices by issuing a denial, claiming that “these claims are totally false and based on a completely flawed methodology.” 
Google did not offer an explanation as to how the Media Research Center’s methodology was “flawed.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 24.0%Joseph Chalfant: 7.4%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias24.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.0%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 5.0%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 14.5%Joseph Chalfant: 1.7%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic14.5%This article: 20.2%Joseph Chalfant: 1.5%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias20.2%This article: 7.1%Joseph Chalfant: 2.1%Townhall: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias7.1%This article: 21.1%Joseph Chalfant: 20.7%Townhall: 11.2%Framing Effect21.1%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.4%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.4%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 4.9%Townhall: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.1%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 51.3%Joseph Chalfant: 23.1%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias51.3%This article: 7.1%Joseph Chalfant: 2.2%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.1%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 7.9%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 4.3%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 3.3%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.0%Townhall: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.4%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Joseph Chalfant: 7.6%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem5.6%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.8%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.2%Joseph Chalfant: 6.2%Townhall: 4.4%Appeal to Authority14.2%This article: 11.6%Joseph Chalfant: 3.0%Townhall: 1.9%False Dilemma11.6%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.3%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 29.7%Joseph Chalfant: 14.3%Townhall: 9.1%Hasty Generalization29.7%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.2%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.7%Joseph Chalfant: 1.7%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon7.7%This article: 26.4%Joseph Chalfant: 19.5%Townhall: 11.1%Appeal to Emotion26.4%This article: 19.3%Joseph Chalfant: 3.3%Townhall: 2.2%Begging the Question19.3%This article: 30.9%Joseph Chalfant: 5.1%Townhall: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)30.9%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.7%Joseph Chalfant: 1.4%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof4.7%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.4%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.1%Joseph Chalfant: 3.6%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.1%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.3%Townhall: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.0%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.4%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading2.4%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.6%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 21.7%Joseph Chalfant: 3.5%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote21.7%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 3.1%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 21.1%Joseph Chalfant: 29.1%Townhall: 16.1%Biased Writer Voice21.1%This article: 6.5%Joseph Chalfant: 6.6%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination6.5%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.4%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 21.4%Joseph Chalfant: 25.6%Townhall: 13.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias21.4%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 7.2%Townhall: 5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

337 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers74%attributed speech86writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageMedia Research Center • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMedia Research Center • 49 words • 100.0% coverageLuis Cornelio • 41 words • 100.0% coverageMedia Research Center • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Bozell • 19 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Bozell • 26 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Bozell • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Bozell • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Bozell • 22 words • 100.0% coverageGoogle • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Luis Cornelio

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words16% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+87.2 ptsWriter: 12.8%Luis Cornelio: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +64.0 ptsWriter: 36.0%Luis Cornelio: 100.0%100.0%

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.