Violence surges in West Bank as settlers escalate attacks ⁠94%

By Cascade PBS Staff⁠69%

7/30/2026, 5:01:05 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 78.3% saturation with 54 hits. Analysis detected 273 faulty-reasoning hits from 69 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 87% and a BS Rank of ⁠94% (1,577 of 25,146 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 93.70% of the article peer group.

Violence surged in the West Bank this past weekend when Palestinians say Israeli settlers burned two mosques following deadly clashes. 
The UN accuses Israeli settlers of increasing their attacks and footprint in the West Bank, the land that Palestinians hope will be their future state. 
Israel says it is Palestinians committing the violence. 
Producer Karl Bostic and Nick Schifrin report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 36.2%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.4%Cascade PBS: 3.2%Confirmation Bias36.2%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.3%Cascade PBS: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 29.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 4.5%Cascade PBS: 5.2%Availability Heuristic29.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.1%Cascade PBS: 0.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.6%Cascade PBS: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 49.3%Cascade PBS Staff: 13.5%Cascade PBS: 13.7%Framing Effect49.3%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.1%Cascade PBS: 0.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.2%Cascade PBS: 0.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.9%Cascade PBS: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 78.3%Cascade PBS Staff: 24.5%Cascade PBS: 24.2%Negativity Bias78.3%This article: 11.6%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.1%Cascade PBS: 0.1%Self-Serving Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.4%Cascade PBS: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 11.6%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.2%Cascade PBS: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.9%Cascade PBS: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 3.0%Cascade PBS: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 3.5%Cascade PBS: 3.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.7%Cascade PBS: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 36.2%Cascade PBS Staff: 6.9%Cascade PBS: 6.8%Appeal to Authority36.2%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.3%Cascade PBS: 0.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.4%Cascade PBS: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 29.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 6.8%Cascade PBS: 6.8%Hasty Generalization29.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.6%Cascade PBS: 1.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 3.5%Cascade PBS: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.5%Cascade PBS: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.4%Cascade PBS: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.1%Cascade PBS: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 36.2%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.5%Cascade PBS: 0.7%Burden of Proof36.2%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.7%Cascade PBS: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.4%Cascade PBS: 4.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 3.1%Cascade PBS: 3.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.3%Cascade PBS: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 29.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 11.4%Cascade PBS: 10.3%Biased Writer Voice29.0%This article: 36.2%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.5%Cascade PBS: 2.1%Indoctrination36.2%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.7%Cascade PBS: 1.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.7%Cascade PBS: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

69 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers48%attributed speech36writer words
Selected voice

United Nations

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words76% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%United Nations: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-55.6 ptsWriter: 55.6%United Nations: 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.