Photos: Wildfire haze cloaks Boston 46%

By WBUR Newsroom0%

7/15/2026, 3:55:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 26.9% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 647 faulty-reasoning hits from 297 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.9% and a BS Rank of 46% (11,632 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.90% of the article peer group.

Boston's skyline was shrouded in an ominous yellow glow Wednesday. 
A thick plume of smoke from wildfires burning in Canada and northern Minnesota coated the New England region, causing poor air quality and dramatic sepia lighting. 
Since the smoke moved in Tuesday, residents across the state and elsewhere have craned their necks to look up, stare at the sun and take photographs of it. 
In some places, the sun was barely visible behind the smokescreen. 
At other times, it appeared like a neon red fireball. 
Air quality alerts were issued for most of the Northeast. 
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection said the skies contain a moderately unhealthy amount of particulate pollution, which will be troubling for sensitive groups, including those with asthma, COPD and other respiratory issues. 
Meteorologist Danielle Noyes said New Englanders should brace themselves for another heavy wave of smoke Thursday afternoon. 
Unlike Tuesday, more of this thick smoke will blanket the area at the ground-level, meaning anyone who heads outside will likely smell it permeate the air. 
On the bright side, National Weather Service meteorologist Caitlyn Mensch said the smoke held off an expected stretch of high heat. 
"Temperatures are definitely rising at a slower rate than was originally forecast, and because of that, we have, in some areas, taken down the heat advisory just because that smoke has limited how quickly the temperatures rose." 
And, as Noyes previously reported, smoke particles scatter blue light, which means people can bank on being dazzled by stunner sunrises and sunsets. 
Here's what it looks like in Boston and across the region on Wednesday: 
Got any foreboding or spectacular photographs to share of the smoke-filled air? 
Share them with us at acreamer@bu.edu, and we may publish them in another photos post. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%WBUR Newsroom: 4.5%Cognoscenti: 2.2%Availability Heuristic8.8%This article: 9.4%WBUR Newsroom: 2.4%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic9.4%This article: 9.4%WBUR Newsroom: 2.4%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Hindsight Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.9%WBUR Newsroom: 11.5%Cognoscenti: 3.8%Framing Effect23.9%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.8%WBUR Newsroom: 7.4%Cognoscenti: 3.3%Optimism Bias14.8%This article: 5.7%WBUR Newsroom: 2.9%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Pessimism Bias5.7%This article: 12.5%WBUR Newsroom: 7.4%Cognoscenti: 4.9%Negativity Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%WBUR Newsroom: 1.9%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Halo Effect7.7%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.8%WBUR Newsroom: 2.2%Cognoscenti: 0.9%Recency Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.1%WBUR Newsroom: 2.8%Cognoscenti: 2.6%Appeal to Authority11.1%This article: 8.8%WBUR Newsroom: 2.2%Cognoscenti: 1.6%False Dilemma8.8%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 12.5%WBUR Newsroom: 3.1%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Circular Reasoning12.5%This article: 9.4%WBUR Newsroom: 4.7%Cognoscenti: 3.6%Hasty Generalization9.4%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.0%WBUR Newsroom: 3.4%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Bandwagon4.0%This article: 13.5%WBUR Newsroom: 8.0%Cognoscenti: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion13.5%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.4%WBUR Newsroom: 2.4%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.4%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.7%WBUR Newsroom: 0.9%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.7%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.5%WBUR Newsroom: 3.1%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Unattributed Quote12.5%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 26.9%WBUR Newsroom: 15.3%Cognoscenti: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice26.9%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WBUR Newsroom: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%WBUR Newsroom: 1.3%Cognoscenti: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.1%

297 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers36%attributed speech189writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection • 33 words • 0.0% coverageDanielle Noyes • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageCaitlyn Mensch • 21 words • 100.0% coverageCaitlyn Mensch • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Caitlyn Mensch

100%flagged-word coverage
58 attributed words54% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Unattributed Quote+63.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Caitlyn Mensch: 63.8%63.8%Biased Writer Voice+5.0 ptsWriter: 31.2%Caitlyn Mensch: 36.2%36.2%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.9 ptsWriter: 7.9%Caitlyn Mensch: 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.