WPLN News12%

Trimming by NES causes falling trees for some property owners 54%

By Camellia Burris78%

7/17/2026, 10:13:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Anecdotal, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 17.7% saturation with 139 hits. Analysis detected 1,130 faulty-reasoning hits from 785 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.3% and a BS Rank of 54% (10,130 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.70% of the article peer group.

Less than a month after NES contract workers trimmed trees in an East Nashville neighborhood  as required by a new policy  a large maple tree fell on a home in the area. 
The Nashville Electric Service ramped up tree trimming efforts earlier this year to mitigate power outages. 
But critics worried the move would cause more harm than good. 
That proved true in July when a recently trimmed tree fell onto an East Nashville home. 
NES implemented a policy that expanded the zone it clears between trees and utility infrastructure from 10 to 15 feet following the January ice storm that left thousands without power . 
City leaders and local residents decried the decision  arguing that the clearance policy shouldn’t be applied unilaterally to all trees since they have varying growth rates. 
Others worried the trimming techniques left the trees vulnerable to falling. 
‘Liability for the homeowner’ 
Taya Mashburn, an East Nashville resident, held that concern, and expressed it to NES contract workers when she saw them cut a tree in half while working from home last month. 
“Don’t you feel like this could be a liability for the homeowner? 
Look at this tree down the street, what you’ve left behind is just completely facing the house,” she said. 
“I would be concerned if I were that homeowner.” 
She worried the tree would be left unbalanced and eventually crash onto her neighbor’s house. 
Mashburn told WPLN News that the workers said they understood her concerns, but were just following orders. 
So, she called NES and asked about the company’s trimming strategy: 
Is it designed to minimize damage? 
Is it backed by environmental assessments showing the need for a 15-foot clearance? 
Is guided by an arborist? 
Those questions weren’t directly answered by NES, she says. 
A representative only reiterated the policy’s goal of reducing power outages. 
When contacted by WPLN, NES provided this email statement:  The customer will have to follow NES’ standard claims process. 
This is the extent to which NES can comment on this situation at this time.” 
Loud crash and breaking glass 
Mashburn voiced her concerns to an NES representative on June 10 and, less than a month later, a large maple tree had fallen onto her neighbor’s house. 
The neighbor, who asked not to be identified, told WPLN News that she was terrified after hearing a loud crash and the sound of breaking glass around 9:30 p.m. on July 7. 
Taya Mashburn spoke to an NES representative on June 10 about concerns regarding the company’s trimming policy, and a month later a large maple tree had fallen on her neighbor’s house. 
This large maple tree fell on a house about a month after a neighbor, Taya Mashburn, spoke to an NES representative on June 10, expressing concern about the company’s trimming policy. 
She was stunned to realize that part of a tree was now in her home, and contacted an emergency tree removal company that deemed the tree was stable and could be removed in the morning. 
NES came out the next day to check if the debris included any live wires. 
While the fallen tree didn’t hurt anyone, the homeowner is left in a logistical nightmare sorting out the cost of physical damage to her property. 
One complaint about the new trimming policy is a lack of communication and transparency, with some residents saying they’d come home from work to find their trees removed without any prior notice. 
NES has a legal right to remove trees based on a 1935 Tennessee law. 
In this case, however, NES did notify some neighborhood residents in May about plans to trim trees the following month. 
‘Decimating the tree canopy’ 
What the company didn’t explain, according to Mashburn, is whether there is a plan to preserve the city’s tree canopy. 
Tree conservation groups requested a moratorium on the trimming policy earlier this year, citing the volume of tree loss caused by the ice storm. 
Mashburn echoed those concerns. 
“Part of why I think people move to this part of the city is because it’s walkable, but when it’s a hundred degrees outside and you have no tree canopy, walking is not great,” she said. 
“My concern is also, you’re completely decimating the tree canopy on this street. 
Is there logic behind the approach here?” 
An NES representative previously told her that they had no plans to trim or cut any trees in her yard. 
Still, she feels personally affected when so many trees are being cut down in her neighborhood. 
“It just really changed the face of the street,” she said. 
“A 100-year-old tree is not something that can be replaced.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.0%Camellia Burris: 4.5%WPLN: 2.3%Confirmation Bias14.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Camellia Burris: 4.8%WPLN: 3.8%Availability Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.6%WPLN: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.0%Camellia Burris: 0.5%WPLN: 0.3%Hindsight Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 1.1%WPLN: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Camellia Burris: 2.2%WPLN: 4.0%Framing Effect4.6%This article: 8.0%Camellia Burris: 4.2%WPLN: 0.4%Loss Aversion8.0%This article: 3.2%Camellia Burris: 0.7%WPLN: 0.7%Status Quo Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Camellia Burris: 4.3%WPLN: 2.8%Optimism Bias4.5%This article: 1.1%Camellia Burris: 1.3%WPLN: 1.0%Pessimism Bias1.1%This article: 14.6%Camellia Burris: 7.7%WPLN: 7.4%Negativity Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.5%WPLN: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 1.8%WPLN: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.7%Camellia Burris: 2.7%WPLN: 1.6%Recency Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Camellia Burris: 0.6%WPLN: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.6%Camellia Burris: 4.6%WPLN: 3.2%Appeal to Authority6.6%This article: 3.4%Camellia Burris: 0.8%WPLN: 1.0%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.4%WPLN: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.0%Camellia Burris: 3.1%WPLN: 3.9%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.5%WPLN: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.5%Camellia Burris: 0.8%WPLN: 0.3%Bandwagon0.5%This article: 8.7%Camellia Burris: 3.2%WPLN: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion8.7%This article: 2.5%Camellia Burris: 0.9%WPLN: 0.6%Begging the Question2.5%This article: 17.7%Camellia Burris: 12.5%WPLN: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.7%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.8%Camellia Burris: 1.7%WPLN: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.8%This article: 4.3%Camellia Burris: 1.0%WPLN: 0.1%Appeal to Nature4.3%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.5%Camellia Burris: 4.5%WPLN: 2.9%Anecdotal12.5%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.2%Camellia Burris: 1.6%WPLN: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.2%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.9%Camellia Burris: 0.2%WPLN: 0.1%Middle Ground0.9%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.3%WPLN: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.9%Camellia Burris: 0.4%WPLN: 0.1%Special Pleading1.9%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.1%Camellia Burris: 3.0%WPLN: 1.5%Unattributed Quote1.1%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 1.1%WPLN: 1.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Camellia Burris: 0.0%WPLN: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

785 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers42%attributed speech459writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 31 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 19 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 11 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 6 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 13 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 5 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageNES • 20 words • 0.0% coverageNES • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 20 words • 0.0% coverageTree conservation groups • 24 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 4 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 36 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 13 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 7 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 20 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 16 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 11 words • 0.0% coverageTaya Mashburn • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words7.4% of attributed speech75% 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…

Analysis

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