BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Pessimism Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 61.4% saturation with 594 hits. Analysis detected 3,353 faulty-reasoning hits from 967 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 83.1% and a BS Rank of 90% (2,197 of 20,517 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.30% of the article peer group.

“Yet again, the Trump administration has sold out our endangered wildlife to the highest bidder,” said one biodiversity advocate after the US Department of Interior, in a Friday news dump, issued two new policy changes that would weaken the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and make it easier for corporate polluters to prioritize their own bottom lines over habitat protection. 
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rescinded a policy that has been known as the “blanket rule” since 1975, which has given threatened species the same protections from illegal killing, trapping, harassment, and other forms of “take” under the ESA, as species that are officially designated as endangered. 
The rollback would apply to species that have been newly declared as threatened, including the Florida manatee, the Pygmy rabbit, the Aztec Gilia, and Clover’s Cactus  which could now go for years without protections despite their habitat loss and declining populations. 
“Today’s decision represents a profound failure by Interior Secretary [Doug] Burgum and his department, and it amounts to an utter abdication of the federal government’s responsibility to protect America’s wildlife,” said Sara Amundson, president of the Humane World Action Fund. 
“The department’s role is to faithfully implement  and certainly not to dismantle  the Endangered Species Act.” 
The other policy change will require the FWS to consider the economic impact on various industries of designating areas as “critical” habitats in order to protect threatened and endangered species. 
The agency has previously had discretion over whether to consider economics when making habitat protection decisions. 
Under President Donald Trump’s new rule, said the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the FWS will be forced “to accept at face value claims by corporations and landowners of economic impacts from designating critical habitat, which could greatly limit the amount and quality of habitat protected for imperiled wildlife.” 
“The way this is written, a landowner could falsely claim they planned to build the next Disneyland on their property, so designating critical habitat would supposedly cost them tens of millions of dollars,” said Noah Greenwald, CBD’s endangered species co-director. 
“This rule is clearly intended to prevent the protection of the wild places that endangered animals and plants need to survive. 
It’s a despicable move that cheapens the value of our most imperiled wildlife so corporations can make more money. 
Anyone can make outrageous claims about how much their property is worth, but that shouldn’t be taken as gospel.” 
Advocacy groups said both policy changes amounted to giveaways to the logging, mining, drilling, and cattle ranching industries. 
The latter industry has long lobbied against land being designated as a critical habitat for the ‘I’iwi bird in Hawaii, Clay Samford, an attorney with the environmental legal group Earthjustice, told The Washington Post. 
“It’s part of this administration’s push to reduce protections for public lands and wildlife that are enjoyed by all Americans, in favor of narrow business interests,” Samford told the newspaper. 
“The Trump administration is turning the law on its head by letting extractive industries dictate where critical habitat can be destroyed,” said Elizabeth Forsyth, a senior attorney for the group, in a statement. 
“This prioritization of industry interests over science is fundamentally at odds with the clear purpose of the Endangered Species Act,” said Forsyth. 
“We won’t let this dangerous giveaway go unchallenged.” 
There is currently a backlog of more than 500 species awaiting consideration for listing as threatened or endangered, and the rule changes, along with the Trump administration’s 18% reduction in the FWS workforce, are expected to leave imperiled species waiting even longer for protections. 
“In the midst of an extinction crisis, with hundreds of species like the Florida manatee and the wolverine desperately needing stronger protections for their habitats, the Trump administration is gutting protections to benefit industry interests,” said Ryan Shannon, a senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. 
“Where we see our nation’s irreplaceable wildlife, they see dollar signs. 
But our federal lands and waters, and the species they support, belong to all Americans, not to the logging, drilling, and mining industries that oppose all limits on maximizing their private profits.” 
In a statement, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum asserted that the ESA has long been “weaponized to stop almost any new project in America, driving up costs for families, weakening our competitiveness, and undermining our national security,” continued Secretary Burgum. 
He added that the endangered species list has “fallen short,” with 97% of listed species remaining designated as endangered, and called for “species recovery and delisting.” 
But Defenders of Wildlife noted that the ESA “has succeeded in preventing extinction for 99% of listed species.” 
“Public support for protecting our native wildlife remains overwhelmingly high, with 84% of voters supporting the ESA, according to nationwide polling conducted by Defenders of Wildlife,” said the group. 
The rules announced on Friday came days after the Interior Department proposed a new rule under which management of threatened grizzly bears would be transferred from the federal government to the states, where Republican leaders have pushed to end protections for the species. 
The administration also exempted oil and gas companies from having to protect endangered species in the Gulf of Mexico, and earlier this month changed the regulatory interpretation of the word “harm” in the ESA. 
“These rules are a one-way ticket to extinction for our most imperiled animals and plants, from monarch butterflies to giraffes to alligator snapping turtles,” said Greenwald. 
“Trump is bending over backward for corporate polluters by ripping away the blanket that protects so many struggling wildlife species as well as the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the natural places where we seek peace of mind. 
This is the last thing we need in the midst of an extinction crisis, and we’ll fight it with everything we’ve got.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.0%Julia Conley: 5.7%Truthout: 5.8%Confirmation Bias11.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.3%Julia Conley: 5.6%Truthout: 3.3%Availability Heuristic20.3%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.2%Truthout: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.8%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.2%Truthout: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Julia Conley: 18.5%Truthout: 10.0%Framing Effect14.7%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 9.1%Julia Conley: 0.9%Truthout: 0.3%Status Quo Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Julia Conley: 0.6%Truthout: 1.0%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 24.1%Julia Conley: 4.4%Truthout: 2.3%Pessimism Bias24.1%This article: 61.4%Julia Conley: 17.7%Truthout: 12.1%Negativity Bias61.4%This article: 6.0%Julia Conley: 0.8%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 1.9%Truthout: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 7.5%Julia Conley: 0.7%Truthout: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias7.5%This article: 7.5%Julia Conley: 2.2%Truthout: 1.9%In-Group Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 1.2%Truthout: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.7%Truthout: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.5%Julia Conley: 1.1%Truthout: 1.1%Recency Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Julia Conley: 3.4%Truthout: 1.6%Ad Hominem10.2%This article: 3.4%Julia Conley: 0.8%Truthout: 0.5%Straw Man3.4%This article: 3.0%Julia Conley: 1.5%Truthout: 3.7%Appeal to Authority3.0%This article: 6.4%Julia Conley: 2.8%Truthout: 1.9%False Dilemma6.4%This article: 6.8%Julia Conley: 7.8%Truthout: 1.6%Slippery Slope6.8%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.7%Julia Conley: 8.7%Truthout: 7.7%Hasty Generalization21.7%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.3%Julia Conley: 0.8%Truthout: 0.6%Bandwagon2.3%This article: 38.5%Julia Conley: 26.6%Truthout: 8.6%Appeal to Emotion38.5%This article: 6.3%Julia Conley: 5.6%Truthout: 1.7%Begging the Question6.3%This article: 23.2%Julia Conley: 4.4%Truthout: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.2%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.8%Truthout: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.7%Truthout: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.1%Julia Conley: 0.1%Truthout: 0.4%Composition/Division1.1%This article: 4.1%Julia Conley: 1.5%Truthout: 2.8%Anecdotal4.1%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.0%Julia Conley: 1.5%Truthout: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.2%Julia Conley: 2.5%Truthout: 1.5%Unattributed Quote11.2%This article: 12.4%Julia Conley: 3.9%Truthout: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection12.4%This article: 5.1%Julia Conley: 5.4%Truthout: 9.4%Biased Writer Voice5.1%This article: 5.0%Julia Conley: 1.4%Truthout: 2.9%Indoctrination5.0%This article: 9.2%Julia Conley: 6.3%Truthout: 7.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Conley: 0.0%Truthout: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

967 words analyzed.

Speakers

10speakers77%attributed speech223writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 59 words • 100.0% coverageUS Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageSara Amundson • 40 words • 0.0% coverageSara Amundson • 18 words • 100.0% coverageUS Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCenter for Biological Diversity (CBD) • 49 words • 100.0% coverageNoah Greenwald • 40 words • 100.0% coverageNoah Greenwald • 21 words • 100.0% coverageNoah Greenwald • 19 words • 0.0% coverageNoah Greenwald • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageClay Samford • 34 words • 0.0% coverageClay Samford • 30 words • 100.0% coverageElizabeth Forsyth • 33 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Forsyth • 22 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Forsyth • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Shannon • 45 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Shannon • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Shannon • 32 words • 0.0% coverageDoug Burgum • 39 words • 100.0% coverageDoug Burgum • 26 words • 0.0% coverageDefenders of Wildlife • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDefenders of Wildlife • 29 words • 0.0% coverageUS Department of Interior • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageNoah Greenwald • 26 words • 0.0% coverageNoah Greenwald • 41 words • 0.0% coverageNoah Greenwald • 22 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words6.6% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+73.5 ptsWriter: 26.5%Center for Biological Diversity (CBD): 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-26.5 ptsWriter: 26.5%Center for Biological Diversity (CBD): 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-26.5 ptsWriter: 26.5%Center for Biological Diversity (CBD): 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Center for Biological Diversity (CBD): 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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