Newsday30%

Tick-born rabbit disease reported on Long Island 3%

By Newsday Studios43% File Footage38% Photo Credit: Newsday30% Daniel Goodrich4% Steven Sunshine4% Wildlife Center of Long Island4%

7/30/2026, 11:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 20.8% saturation with 11 hits. Analysis detected 18 faulty-reasoning hits from 53 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 8.5% and a BS Rank of 3% (28,620 of 29,340 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 97.50% of the article peer group.

Tularemia, also known as rabbit fever, has been reported in Suffolk County. 
It's a rare disease that can spread to humans via ticks. 
NewsdayTV's Ken Buffa has more. 
Credit: Newsday Studios; File Footage; Photo Credit: Newsday / Daniel Goodrich; Steven Sunshine; Wildlife Center of Long Island 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 15.9%Newsday: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 4.0%Newsday: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%Newsday Studios: 13.8%Newsday: 2.4%Availability Heuristic20.8%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 9.9%Newsday: 4.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 4.0%Newsday: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%Newsday Studios: 0.9%Newsday: 8.4%Negativity Bias13.2%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 1.6%Newsday: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 2.7%Newsday: 3.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 1.9%Newsday: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 9.9%Newsday: 2.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 12.1%Newsday: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 2.4%Newsday: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 10.2%Newsday: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 2.2%Newsday: 0.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

53 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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