NPR⁠84%

'We're dry:' The new U.S. Wildland Fire Service prepares for extreme fire season ⁠80%

By Henry Larson⁠0% Emily Feng⁠0% Tinbete Ermyas⁠0%

5/9/2026, 12:03:44 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.3% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 900 faulty-reasoning hits from 277 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠80% (4,408 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.90% of the article peer group.

Across the country, wildland firefighters are staring down what could be one of the most severe fire seasons in recent history. 
Among those figuring out how to prepare is the U.S. 
Wildland Fire Service, a brand new agency created by the Trump administration. 
"We're dry and we're expecting the pace to pick up significantly here any time," said the recently appointed head of that service, Brian Fennessy, in an interview with NPR's All Things Considered host Emily Feng. 
The agency is a product of an ongoing White House effort to combine all the parts of the federal government that fight fires. 
"We're trying to bring on additional aircraft and bring them on early," he said. 
The agency is also bringing on more fire crews earlier in the year. 
Some wildfire experts, like Park Williams at the University of California, Los Angeles, say they want the government to do more preventative work that could stop a major fire instead of narrowly focusing on suppressing those that ignite. 
"If we don't want fires to be growing so large that they have catastrophic consequences for people and ecosystems, then the best tool we have at our disposal is large prescribed fires," Williams said. 
NPR's Emily Feng spoke with Chief Fennessy to learn how his agency is preparing for the fire season ahead, and because of a new policy the Wildland Fire Service has been instructed to carry out this summer that some say prioritizes putting out fires over trying to prevent them with prescribed burns. 
Listen to the full interview by clicking the blue play button above. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.8%Henry Larson: 4.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias18.8%This article: 4.3%Henry Larson: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias4.3%This article: 7.6%Henry Larson: 5.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic7.6%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Henry Larson: 11.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.3%Henry Larson: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.7%Henry Larson: 2.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias9.7%This article: 15.5%Henry Larson: 2.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias15.5%This article: 34.3%Henry Larson: 13.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias34.3%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 1.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Henry Larson: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias13.7%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 1.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 18.8%Henry Larson: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias18.8%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.7%Henry Larson: 6.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority13.7%This article: 26.0%Henry Larson: 3.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma26.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.6%Henry Larson: 7.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization7.6%This article: 18.8%Henry Larson: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring18.8%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.1%Henry Larson: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion14.1%This article: 12.3%Henry Larson: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question12.3%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 3.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 2.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 27.1%Henry Larson: 4.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)27.1%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 4.3%Henry Larson: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy4.3%This article: 31.4%Henry Larson: 5.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Unattributed Quote31.4%This article: 1.8%Henry Larson: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection1.8%This article: 26.4%Henry Larson: 9.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.1%Biased Writer Voice26.4%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Henry Larson: 4.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Henry Larson: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias4.3%This article: 4.3%Henry Larson: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.3%

277 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers44%attributed speech156writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageBrian Fennessy • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Fennessy • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coveragePark Williams • 38 words • 0.0% coveragePark Williams • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Park Williams

100%flagged-word coverage
72 attributed words60% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-46.8 ptsWriter: 46.8%Park Williams: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-33.3 ptsWriter: 33.3%Park Williams: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Park Williams: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Park Williams: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Park Williams: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.