A storm, overpriced food and a sad ferris wheel: inside Trump’s dreadful state fair 69%

By Adam Gabbatt0%

7/1/2026, 10:00:41 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Pessimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 42.7% saturation with 270 hits. Analysis detected 1,661 faulty-reasoning hits from 632 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62% and a BS Rank of 69% (6,895 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.50% of the article peer group.

I have been to some disappointing fairs in my time. 
There was one, in a small town in north-west England, where the main attraction was a little slide that you rode down on a burlap sack: except the guy who owned the slide had forgotten to bring the sacks, so me and my sister slid down on a T-shirt. 
Another time, at a village fete in a place called Longton, I won the main prize at the bingo. 
It was a whisky decanter with a bottle of whiskey. 
I was 11 years old, the decanter was broken and some bigger boys took the whiskey. 
More recently, I looked on as two farmers engaged in a shouting match over whose pumpkin was larger at a fair in Iowa. 
Such exposure means I’m probably better equipped than most to see the possibility in Donald Trump’s Great American State Fair, but even given my breadth of bad fair experience, the Trump National Mall even sounds absolutely dreadful. 
“A rather embarrassing flop,” MS Now wrote. 
“A big ol’ dud,” was the verdict of Slate. 
“To put it simply, miserable,” the New Republic ruled, while USA Today said witnessing the failure of Trump’s fair is “like watching your high school bully host a party that no one attends”. 
What makes it so bad? 
Well for one thing, very few people seem to have been going. 
For another, the fair’s signature attraction, a (quite small) ferris wheel, was plagued by power cuts on the first day. 
And despite organizers’ claims that 56 states and territories would be represented, each given their own booths at the event, several declined to participate due to cost. 
The opening ceremony was meant to be a musical extravaganza, featuring acts including Martina McBride, Bret Michaels, the Commodores, Morris Day and the Time, Young MC, and Flo Rida, but most of those performers pulled out, several saying they had been unaware the event would have a political undertone. 
Instead, people attending the opening night got a performance from Trump: specifically, a campaign-style rally during which the president trotted out his usual claims about how the US is the “hottest country anywhere in the world”. 
(Ironically, the Virginia booth at the fair was closed on Tuesday due to extreme heat, and the fair itself was forced to close early on its second day, because of a storm.) 
Things got worse when a Confederate flag had to be removed from a booth at the fair, prompting one of the sponsors to drop out. 
Then there was more negative publicity as people found out how much things cost at the event: $25 for a pretzel, $23 for a turkey leg, $9 for a lemonade. 
Against this backdrop, Fox News has valiantly tried to put positive spin on the fair, like the White Star Line claiming people had enjoyed a very pleasant four days at sea before the Titanic hit that iceberg. 
The channel even broadcast live from the fair on Monday, the idea being to champion the event. 
But, as the journalist Aaron Rupar documented, all that achieved was to prove that very few people were in attendance. 
So what have we learned? 
Maybe the lesson is: don’t try to throw a big celebratory fair when you are a historically unpopular president. 
Or: if you do host a fair, make sure it is a) good, and b) doesn’t have a racist flag on display. 
The fair is larger than the ones I went to as a kid. 
But you know what? 
At least those ones were fun. 
And cheap. 
The sack/T-shirt slide only cost 20p. 
The scar on my knee, sustained when friction caused the T-shirt to rip? 
That will last a lifetime. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.9%Adam Gabbatt: 2.7%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 1.1%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.6%Adam Gabbatt: 4.7%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic14.6%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 1.5%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.5%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Adam Gabbatt: 3.8%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias5.9%This article: 7.9%Adam Gabbatt: 10.4%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect7.9%This article: 5.7%Adam Gabbatt: 1.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion5.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 1.5%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.7%Adam Gabbatt: 5.9%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias21.7%This article: 41.8%Adam Gabbatt: 25.1%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias41.8%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.5%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Adam Gabbatt: 2.4%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error2.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 1.3%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 2.5%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.2%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 1.4%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.2%Adam Gabbatt: 3.9%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority3.2%This article: 6.5%Adam Gabbatt: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma6.5%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.4%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.9%Adam Gabbatt: 12.9%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization10.9%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 24.7%Adam Gabbatt: 6.5%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion24.7%This article: 0.8%Adam Gabbatt: 2.0%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question0.8%This article: 12.0%Adam Gabbatt: 4.0%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.9%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.4%Adam Gabbatt: 4.8%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal17.4%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 2.3%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.0%Adam Gabbatt: 2.8%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote9.0%This article: 7.8%Adam Gabbatt: 3.1%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection7.8%This article: 42.7%Adam Gabbatt: 21.1%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice42.7%This article: 6.5%Adam Gabbatt: 2.3%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination6.5%This article: 5.9%Adam Gabbatt: 7.1%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.9%This article: 5.7%Adam Gabbatt: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.7%This article: 4.7%Adam Gabbatt: 0.9%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.7%

632 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers17%attributed speech526writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageMS Now • 7 words • 100.0% coverageSlate • 9 words • 100.0% coverageNew Republic • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageFox News • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageAaron Rupar • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

New Republic

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words31% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%New Republic: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+96.8 ptsWriter: 3.2%New Republic: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-42.6 ptsWriter: 42.6%New Republic: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-7.8 ptsWriter: 7.8%New Republic: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%New Republic: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.7 ptsWriter: 5.7%New Republic: 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.