Newsday⁠30%

Former Wantagh fire medic settles claims two department officers raped her ⁠14%

By Newsday Staff⁠13%

8/2/2026, 11:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 51.9% saturation with 27 hits. Analysis detected 38 faulty-reasoning hits from 52 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠14% (25,455 of 29,596 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.00% of the article peer group.

The settlement ends litigation that made the allegations public and prompted the Wantagh Fire Department to remove the officers after they failed to cooperate with an investigation. 
NewsdayTV's Shari Einhorn and Newsday investigative reporter Jim Baumbach have more. 
Credit: Newsday Staff 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 2.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 4.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.2%Newsday Staff: 10.6%Newsday: 8.4%Negativity Bias21.2%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 3.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 2.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 51.9%Newsday Staff: 13.0%Newsday: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)51.9%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Staff: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

52 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.8%attributed speech49writer words
Selected voice

Newsday Staff

0%flagged-word coverage
3 attributed words100% of attributed speech78% 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.