Young humpback whale freed from a death trap in Alaska 5%

By Sara Hashemi0%

7/3/2026, 4:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 13.6% saturation with 61 hits. Analysis detected 447 faulty-reasoning hits from 449 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.2% and a BS Rank of 5% (20,162 of 21,164 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.30% of the article peer group.

A juvenile humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) entangled in the opening to Alaska’s Endicott Arm was successfully freed after a multi-agency rescue mission. 
Endicott Arm is a narrow fjord located about 50 miles southeast of Juneau. 
While remote, it’s a major destination for cruise ships and commercial fishing vessels that can be a risk to whales and other marine wildlife. 
According to a statement from NOAA on June 24, several mariners noticed the entangled juvenile whale on the evening of May 10 and reported the sighting to the NOAA Fisheries Alaska Marine Mammal Stranding Network 24-hour hotline. 
The whale was caught in lines from two commercial Tanner crab pots. 
Since each pot weighs around 800 pounds, they essentially acted as anchors on the animal, making it unable to move. 
The mariners’ alert allowed regional coordinators to develop their response plan in a timely manner. 
“We formed a network of eyes on the water—vessel crews coordinating real-time updates between one another and relaying them to us,” said NOAA Fisheries Marine Mammal Specialist Suzie Teerlink in a statement. 
“That communication was critical. 
It gave us insight into the nature of the entanglement, helped us build a safe response plan, and gave us confidence that we could relocate the whale.” 
A response team made up of biologists from NOAA Fisheries, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Marine Mammal program, and local partners from Alaska Sea to Shore mobilized the very next day. 
They worked over five hours to make four precise cuts that freed the whale from the pots and most of the entangling lines. 
“Cutting gear off an animal of this size can be dangerous,” said John Moran, a NOAA research fisheries biologist and advanced responder on the team. 
“We use long poles fitted with specialized knives to extend our reach. 
That allows us to cut lines while reducing the risk of being injured by a 40-ton animal.” 
The responders are hopeful the remaining will eventually fall off the whale. 
Entanglements are a major problem in Alaska. 
Since 1998, there have been more than 140 confirmed reports of entangled large whales. 
That number is likely far greater, since many entanglements go unreported. 
Unable to move, the animals can drown or starve, develop life-threatening infections, and may be hit by vessels. 
“We are incredibly grateful to the whale watch community and everyone who reported this entangled whale to the NOAA Fisheries hotline,” said Sadie Wright, Large Whale Entanglement Response Coordinator for the NOAA Fisheries Alaska Region. 
“The details provided by the public enabled our response team to prepare and execute a safe response to this life-threatening entanglement, leading to a successful outcome.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.1%Sara Hashemi: 1.7%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias9.1%This article: 4.5%Sara Hashemi: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias4.5%This article: 4.0%Sara Hashemi: 2.5%Popular Science: 2.6%Availability Heuristic4.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 1.6%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Sara Hashemi: 5.4%Popular Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias0.9%This article: 2.2%Sara Hashemi: 2.3%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.7%Sara Hashemi: 12.2%Popular Science: 4.7%Optimism Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Sara Hashemi: 1.4%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias6.2%This article: 7.8%Sara Hashemi: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Sara Hashemi: 1.3%Popular Science: 2.1%Halo Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.6%Sara Hashemi: 6.6%Popular Science: 4.3%Appeal to Authority11.6%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.0%Sara Hashemi: 2.6%Popular Science: 4.2%Hasty Generalization4.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.8%Sara Hashemi: 0.8%Popular Science: 0.5%Bandwagon7.8%This article: 6.2%Sara Hashemi: 3.0%Popular Science: 2.8%Appeal to Emotion6.2%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.6%Sara Hashemi: 2.0%Popular Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.6%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 1.5%Popular Science: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.2%Sara Hashemi: 0.8%Popular Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote8.2%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 1.5%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.9%Sara Hashemi: 2.2%Popular Science: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice0.9%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.3%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sara Hashemi: 0.3%Popular Science: 2.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

449 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers48%attributed speech234writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageNOAA • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSuzie Teerlink • 32 words • 0.0% coverageSuzie Teerlink • 4 words • 100.0% coverageSuzie Teerlink • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Moran • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Moran • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Moran • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageSadie Wright • 35 words • 0.0% coverageSadie Wright • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sadie Wright

100%flagged-word coverage
61 attributed words28% of attributed speech40% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.