Big Change Could Be Coming to Daylight Saving Time in New York 74%

By CJ McIntyre90%

7/18/2026, 12:01:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Negativity Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 23.9% saturation with 118 hits. Analysis detected 1,137 faulty-reasoning hits from 494 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.6% and a BS Rank of 74% (5,857 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.20% of the article peer group.

If changing the clocks twice a year drives you crazy, you might finally be getting some good news. 
Daylight Saving Time Permanent in the U.S. 
For years, people have been calling on the federal government to stop changing the clocks twice a year and make daylight saving time permanent. 
A bill moving through Congress could finally make that happen, and if it becomes law, it would mean a pretty big change for everyone here in New York. 
The U.S. 
House of Representatives has passed the Sunshine Protection Act, which would make daylight saving time permanent. 
The bill now heads to the Senate, and if it's approved there, it'll land on President Donald Trump's desk. 
Could New Yorkers Stop Changing Their Clocks? 
If the bill becomes law, we'd still move our clocks ahead in the spring, but we'd never have to "fall back" again in November. 
That means no more losing daylight in the late afternoon just as many people are getting out of work. 
It's something a lot of New Yorkers have been asking for over the years. 
SEE ALSO: Great! 
Here's One More Thing That Costs More in New York 
Supporters of the bill say permanent daylight saving time could encourage people to spend more time outside, help local businesses, boost tourism, and eliminate the disruption that comes with changing the clocks twice a year. 
Some also believe it could help with seasonal depression during the darker months. 
Not everyone agrees, though. 
Opponents point out that keeping daylight saving time year-round would mean much darker mornings during the winter, which could be tough for kids waiting for school buses, early commuters, and farmers. 
Here's What Would Change in New York 
For most of the year, you probably wouldn't notice much of a difference. 
The biggest changes would come during the winter months. 
Right now, once we switch back to standard time in the fall, New Yorkers see some of the earliest sunsets in the country. 
Here in Poughkeepsie, the earliest winter sunset is around 4:25 p.m. 
Under permanent daylight saving time, that same sunset wouldn't happen until about 5:25 p.m., giving us an extra hour of daylight after work instead of it feeling like nighttime before dinner. 
The tradeoff is that the sun wouldn't rise until around 8:13 a.m. on some winter mornings, meaning many people would be driving to work or heading to school before sunrise. 
For now, nothing has changed. 
New Yorkers should still expect to turn their clocks back this fall like always. 
But with the House approving the Sunshine Protection Act and President Trump publicly supporting it, there's a real chance the days of changing the clocks every spring and fall could finally be coming to an end. 
So, what do you think? 
Should we stop changing the clocks twice a year, or keep things the way they are? 
Let us know through our station app above. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.1%CJ McIntyre: 7.1%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Confirmation Bias7.1%This article: 6.1%CJ McIntyre: 2.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Anchoring Bias6.1%This article: 9.5%CJ McIntyre: 3.2%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Availability Heuristic9.5%This article: 3.8%CJ McIntyre: 1.3%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic3.8%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%CJ McIntyre: 0.9%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias2.6%This article: 12.3%CJ McIntyre: 15.7%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Framing Effect12.3%This article: 21.1%CJ McIntyre: 7.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Loss Aversion21.1%This article: 11.7%CJ McIntyre: 3.9%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Status Quo Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 18.0%CJ McIntyre: 15.7%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Optimism Bias18.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.0%CJ McIntyre: 6.3%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Negativity Bias19.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%CJ McIntyre: 1.3%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Halo Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.3%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Recency Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.5%CJ McIntyre: 5.9%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Appeal to Authority10.5%This article: 4.7%CJ McIntyre: 2.6%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%False Dilemma4.7%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.0%CJ McIntyre: 15.4%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Hasty Generalization19.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 5.1%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 23.9%CJ McIntyre: 10.1%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Appeal to Emotion23.9%This article: 1.4%CJ McIntyre: 0.5%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Begging the Question1.4%This article: 13.4%CJ McIntyre: 4.5%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.4%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.3%CJ McIntyre: 3.4%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Anecdotal10.3%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.0%CJ McIntyre: 5.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Unattributed Quote15.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 8.5%CJ McIntyre: 4.9%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Biased Writer Voice8.5%This article: 2.6%CJ McIntyre: 0.9%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Indoctrination2.6%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CJ McIntyre: 0.0%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%CJ McIntyre: 1.6%104.5 The Team ESPN Radio: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.7%

494 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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