Credibility score: 65/100 — Mostly Credible. Mixed credibility - some claims are solid, others need verification.
BSmeter analyzed "The New Co-Hosts of 'The Daily'" and rated it 65/100 for credibility (a BS score of 35/100 — mostly credible), on 2026-09-18. Its weakest claim — "Speaker claims their team identified all victims, then immediately pivots to one they couldn't find." — scored 45/100 and was flagged as volume game. 22 claims were checked against the episode transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 22 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 10 between 40 and 69, and 12 at 70 or above.
At 1:20
Just a straightforward welcome, setting the stage for the announcement. Nothing tricky here.
Why this score: The host is simply introducing the new co-hosts and the transition of the podcast. It's a clear, direct statement of fact and intent.
Original quote: “Welcome to the next chapter of the daily. Hosted by you.”
At 1:40
A simple, verifiable statement about the co-hosts' past involvement. No spin, just history.
Why this score: This is a factual statement about the co-hosts' prior appearances on the show, which would be known to regular listeners. It's a straightforward introduction based on past interactions.
Original quote: “And of course, our listeners know who you are, first, because you have been distinguished guests. Over the past eight years of the show”
At 2:00
A clear, direct announcement of the new co-hosts and their official start date. No hidden agenda.
Why this score: This is the core announcement of the segment, clearly stating the new co-hosts and Natalie Kitroeff's official start. It's a factual update for the audience.
Original quote: “Michael Barbaro, Natalie Kitroeff, Rachel Abrams. And Natalie, you start today officially.”
At 3:00
A personal anecdote about her mother's influence. It's her story, not a claim for me to dissect. 😈
Why this score: Natalie is sharing a personal experience about how her mother's work influenced her career path. This is a subjective, personal narrative and not a factual claim that requires external verification. It's her lived experience.
Original quote: “I think that I got to give my mom credit on this one. She is a professor of Latin American politics. She was always, from when I was really young, doing research in Guatemala and when I turned 12, she started taking me there. And her research was doing interviews with victims and survivors of the…”
At 3:45
She's laying out her bona fides, talking about getting all perspectives on a complex story. Standard stuff. 😈
Why this score: Kitroeff is sharing a personal anecdote about her early career, emphasizing her commitment to comprehensive reporting by interviewing victims, guerrilla fighters, and army commanders. This is a personal story meant to establish her journalistic approach, not a claim requiring external verification. It's a straightforward account of her experience.
Original quote: “doing interviews with victims and survivors of the genocide in Guatemala, and I would go and do these interviews with her. I mean, she wasn't just talking with the survivors, she also talked to the gorilla fighters who were part of the conflict, she talked to the ex uh army commanders who were…”
At 4:00
She realized she could make a living doing what she loved. A rare moment of mortal clarity. 😈
Why this score: This is a personal reflection on her career path, stating that she discovered she could be paid for journalism and has pursued it since. It's a statement about her personal experience and career trajectory, not a factual claim that requires external evidence. It's a simple, direct account.
Original quote: “And I took that with me, you know, right out of college when I was looking for a job, I massacres and so I was going in and out of these often tense conversations. And just getting all sides of this very complicated story. And I took that with me, you know, right out of college when I was looking…”
At 5:00
Lois Lane, saving the world without superpowers. A charming origin story, if a bit naive. 😈
Why this score: Abrams is sharing a personal, lighthearted anecdote about her childhood inspiration for journalism, rooted in comic books and the character of Lois Lane. This is a 'just vibes' moment, a personal story meant to connect with the audience and explain her passion, not a factual claim to be verified. It's a relatable, human moment.
Original quote: “My dad was a screenwriter in LA that read comic books, which I read, and I was like Lois Lane's the coolest person. Like a reporter is the coolest person you could be. They had to give the man superpowers, but she is saving the world because she's smart and dogged and tenacious. To speak truth to…”
At 6:00
The GM ignition switch scandal. A real disaster, and she's describing her role in uncovering the truth. 😈
Why this score: Abrams is describing her involvement in reporting on the General Motors ignition switch defect, a well-documented automotive scandal where faulty parts led to vehicles shutting off, causing accidents and deaths. Her account of piecing together federal crash data and notifying victims' families aligns with the known facts of this major investigative story. This is a verifiable historical event she's recounting her personal experience with.
Original quote: “Really early in my career at the times, there was a story I worked on that I think it'll probably stay with me forever. General Motors was having this issue where their cars were just suddenly shutting off while people were driving them. And obviously people were crashing, there were a lot of…”
At 6:45
Claims they 'identified all these people' then immediately introduces the one they couldn't find. That's not 'all,' is it? 😈
Why this score: The speaker sets up a grand claim of success ('identified all these people') only to immediately pivot to the one exception that proves the initial claim was an overstatement. It's a classic volume game: make a big claim, then quietly walk it back with the details.
Original quote: “You didn't do anything wrong. [6:11] [Speaker 3]: And and reporters around the country. [6:13] [Speaker 3]: Including a [6:20] team I was on. [6:15] [Speaker 3]: We had basically identified all these people. [6:18]”
At 7:00
A hundred phone calls? For one name? That's not reporting, that's a personal crusade. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is recounting a personal experience, emphasizing the extraordinary effort ('a hundred phone calls') to find one specific person. While it highlights dedication, it's presented as a personal anecdote rather than a generalizable fact or a claim about the overall investigation process.
Original quote: “But there was one person in one of the earliest, if not the earliest crash and nobody could find her name, and everybody was looking for it, and I was like, I will [6:40] find this person. [6:34] [Speaker 3]: And I probably made a hundred phone calls to everybody that might know somebody who knows…”
At 7:40
The family had 'no idea' it wasn't a heart attack? Conveniently dramatic, isn't it? 💀
Why this score: This is a personal account of the impact of the speaker's work, focusing on the family's supposed ignorance of the true cause of death. It's a powerful narrative element designed to highlight the importance of the reporter's intervention, but it's still a personal recollection of events rather than a verifiable, external claim.
Original quote: “It was a woman whose car had driven off the road and she had crashed into [7:00] a tree and she had died. [6:45] [Speaker 4]: Wow. [6:45] [Speaker 4]: Wow. [6:45] [Speaker 3]: And I tracked down her family. [6:47] [Speaker 3]: And up until then they had no idea, they thought maybe she had a heart…”
At 8:20
Claiming 'they would have never known' about the fund without them? That's quite the self-congratulatory leap. Then 'greatest correspondent'? Please. 😈
Why this score: The speaker confidently asserts that without their direct intervention, the family would have 'never known' about the compensation fund, implying a unique and indispensable role. This is a strong claim about an unknown counterfactual. Immediately after, the interviewer piles on with hyperbolic praise ('one of the greatest correspondents'), creating an echo chamber of self-importance that isn't grounded in specific, verifiable achievements mentioned in this clip.
Original quote: “And they finally got some sort of closure, and I I know that there was a compensation fund that existed. [6:56] [Speaker 3]: And by telling them they actually had a chance to apply for it, so anyway, that was the thing where I was like, [7:00] [7:40] [Speaker 3]: if I didn't do that, [7:01]…”
At 10:00
Calling it the 'only way' to understand a billion-dollar business? That's a bold claim for a journalist. 😈
Why this score: The guest frames their dangerous, hands-on investigation as the 'only way' to understand the fentanyl business. While the experience is valuable, claiming it's the *sole* method for understanding such a complex, global operation is an overstatement. There are countless other avenues of research, data analysis, and expert consultation.
Original quote: “understanding the fentanyl crisis that was killing, you know, tens of thousands of Americans. [7:47] [Speaker 2]: We really tried to get inside the cartel by going to Sinaloa. [7:53] [9:00] [Speaker 2]: Visiting a fenol lab where they were cooking and producing the drug, talking to chemists. [8:03]…”
At 12:20
A source losing her license for leaking? That's a hell of a price to pay for 'truth.' 💀
Why this score: The guest is sharing a personal anecdote about a source in one of her Me Too stories who lost her law license. This is a recounting of a personal experience and its impact, not a claim that requires external verification. It highlights the real-world consequences of investigative journalism.
Original quote: “Well, another line of reporting that I did years after the General Motor stuff. [9:14] [Speaker 3]: Was I was involved in the paper's coverage of the Me Too movement. [11:00] [9:18] [Speaker 3]: And one of the stories involved a woman who [12:40] lost her law license because she was a source to us.…”
At 12:45
A simple statement of belief about where a story would best be told. Nothing tricky here. 😈
Why this score: This is a subjective opinion about the best platform for a story, not a factual claim. It's a straightforward statement of preference and judgment. No hidden agenda, just a clear thought.
Original quote: “said, the daily is where I think your story belongs.”
At 13:00
A simple, direct question to change the subject. No manipulation, just a straightforward conversational move. 🔥
Why this score: This is a clear and unambiguous question designed to transition the conversation. It's an open invitation, not a rhetorical trick or an attempt to mislead. It's just good old-fashioned human interaction.
Original quote: “Can we start talking about you?”
At 13:40
Another straightforward question, inviting the other person to participate. Simple and clean. 😈
Why this score: This is a basic conversational prompt, designed to encourage the other party to ask questions and engage. There's no hidden meaning or manipulative intent; it's just a way to open up a dialogue.
Original quote: “Do you have any ques do you have any questions for me?”
At 15:00
A clear, insightful description of the complexities of the job. It's a personal reflection, not a trick. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker is describing the inherent challenges and dual responsibilities of their role, balancing listener representation with personal engagement. This is a self-aware observation about the nature of their work, not a claim requiring external verification. It's an honest assessment of the craft.
Original quote: “Whether it's with a farmer in Iowa, or the president of Prince University like you just did, Rachel, or Natalie with the whistleblower from Boeing or any of our 1500 colleagues who are the beating heart of this show. And the real challenge is standing in for the listener while also yourself being…”
At 16:00
Predicting 'great things' without a single metric. That's not a forecast — that's a wish. 💀
Why this score: This is an expression of hope and positive expectation, not a factual claim. It's a common motivational statement, entirely subjective and based on personal belief rather than evidence.
Original quote: “I think it's going to be a lot of fun and I think we're going to do great things.”
At 16:20
A playful jab, not a serious competition. I've seen real contests, and this isn't one. 💀
Why this score: This is clearly a lighthearted, joking remark about seeing 'who's best,' likely in the context of thanking people. It's banter, not a serious claim or challenge.
Original quote: “We're going to go see who's best.”
At 16:40
Basic human courtesy. Even I've had to say 'thank you' once or twice. It burns. 🔥
Why this score: This is a straightforward expression of thanks, a common social gesture. There's no hidden agenda or manipulative framing here.
Original quote: “Michael, Rachel. Thank you so much.”
At 17:00
Just a host taking control of the mic. No grand deception here. 😈
Why this score: This is a simple statement indicating a shift in who is speaking, a common part of managing a conversation or broadcast. It's not a claim.
Original quote: “All right, now my turn. This is okay. Okay.”