Massive bison tosses Yellowstone tourist into the air in shocking attack ⁠61%

By Anthony Blair⁠0%

7/12/2026, 5:32:45 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 45.8% saturation with 121 hits. Analysis detected 696 faulty-reasoning hits from 264 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠61% (8,680 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.30% of the article peer group.

Sen. 
Lindsey Graham dead at 71 after ‘brief and sudden’ illness 
See more of our coverage in your search results. 
Add The New York Post on Google 
A massive bull bison tossed a tourist into the air, seriously injuring him, in a heart-pounding caught-on-camera attack at Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. 
Video show the unidentified man being thrown 8 feet in the air by the wild bison at the Bridge Bay Campground, Cowboy State Daily reported . 
The tourist was walking with his grandson when the powerful herbivore attacked. 
Video shows the man running around a copse of pines to try to escape the bull, which was giving itself a dust bath moments earlier. 
The bison suddenly charged the two tourists, and then viciously head-butted the older bearded man — catapulting him into the air. 
“I was just trying to get some dramatic footage of that bison having a fit. 
It’s changed my idea of what to expect from these guys at this time of year, because I would not have predicted that happening,” Montana-based photographer Mike MacLeod, who took the pictures, told Cowboy State Daily. 
The tourist was thrown 8 feet into the air at the Bridge Bay Campground. 
“He [the bison] started walking through the campground. 
He was coming up to this group of kids, who were taking pictures on their cellphones from a good distance away, and then the buffalo charged these kids,” MacLeod said. 
No update has been released on the condition of the man tossed by the bison. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 4.9%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 1.5%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 26.9%Anthony Blair: 4.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic26.9%This article: 9.5%Anthony Blair: 1.5%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic9.5%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 2.9%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 1.0%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 37.1%Anthony Blair: 7.7%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect37.1%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.4%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.3%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 1.1%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Anthony Blair: 1.1%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias3.8%This article: 25.0%Anthony Blair: 19.6%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias25.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 2.7%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 2.4%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.8%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 2.1%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 1.7%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.2%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.6%Anthony Blair: 2.5%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias13.6%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.3%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 1.4%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.2%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.8%Anthony Blair: 5.8%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority9.8%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.4%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 1.3%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 5.0%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.5%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.3%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 25.0%Anthony Blair: 12.3%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion25.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.9%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 3.9%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 1.0%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 22.7%Anthony Blair: 2.1%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal22.7%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 23.9%Anthony Blair: 4.6%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)23.9%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.5%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.2%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.7%Anthony Blair: 4.2%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote8.7%This article: 5.7%Anthony Blair: 3.5%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.7%This article: 45.8%Anthony Blair: 12.7%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice45.8%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 1.5%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Blair: 1.8%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Anthony Blair: 0.3%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.1%

264 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker25%attributed speech198writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageMike MacLeod • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageMike MacLeod • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mike MacLeod

100%flagged-word coverage
66 attributed words100% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice+11.6 ptsWriter: 42.9%Mike MacLeod: 54.5%54.5%Unattributed Quote-11.6 ptsWriter: 11.6%Mike MacLeod: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Mike MacLeod: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.6 ptsWriter: 7.6%Mike MacLeod: 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.