Newsday30%

How snowy winter could lead to summer surge of ticks, fireflies 56%

By Rick Kopstein70% Gary Licker70% File Footage38% Photo Credit: Newsday30% Steve Pfost70% AP60% Carolyn Kaster70%

7/31/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 47.2% saturation with 25 hits. Analysis detected 87 faulty-reasoning hits from 53 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.2% and a BS Rank of 56% (12,939 of 29,351 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.90% of the article peer group.

Experts say the snowy winter could be a driving force in the increase in Long Island's tick and firefly population. 
NewdsayTV meteorologist Geoff Bansen reports. 
Credit: Rick Kopstein, Gary Licker; File Footage; Photo Credit: Newsday / Steve Pfost; AP / Carolyn Kaster 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 37.7%Rick Kopstein: 9.4%Newsday: 1.9%Confirmation Bias37.7%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 14.6%Newsday: 2.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%Rick Kopstein: 5.2%Newsday: 4.5%Framing Effect20.8%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 8.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 47.2%Rick Kopstein: 30.7%Newsday: 3.0%Appeal to Authority47.2%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 2.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 20.8%Rick Kopstein: 19.8%Newsday: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)20.8%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 9.4%Newsday: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 37.7%Rick Kopstein: 9.4%Newsday: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice37.7%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rick Kopstein: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

53 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.4%attributed speech48writer words
Selected voice

Geoff Bansen

100%flagged-word coverage
5 attributed words100% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-41.7 ptsWriter: 41.7%Geoff Bansen: 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.