Poor air quality covers nearly all of Oregon as wildfires rage 28%

By Tracy Loew45%

8/4/2026, 11:47:01 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 38.7% saturation with 79 hits. Analysis detected 210 faulty-reasoning hits from 204 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33% and a BS Rank of 28% (20,201 of 28,060 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.00% of the article peer group.

Oregon health officials have issued an air quality advisory for nearly the entire state, caused by smoke from multiple wildfires burning in both Oregon and Washington. 
As of late morning Aug. 4, air quality was measuring as “hazardous” in Prineville, “unhealthy” in central and eastern Oregon and “unhealthy for sensitive groups” in much of the Willamette Valley. 
Only Brookings, in the far southwest corner of the state, had good air quality. 
Here are some tips to protect your health, from DEQ: 
* Be aware of smoke concentrations in your area and avoid places with the highest concentrations. 
Check local conditions on DEQ’s website at https://oraqi.deq.state.or.us/home/map or download DEQ’s free mobile app by searching OregonAir on your app store. 
* Keep windows and doors closed. 
If possible, use an air filter that removes very fine particulate matter. 
* Avoid strenuous outdoor activity in smoky conditions. 
* Small children, pregnant women and those with heart disease, asthma or other respiratory ailments should try to stay indoors or leave the area until conditions improve. 
Tracy Loew covers environment and education at the Statesman Journal. 
Send comments, questions and tips:tloew@statesmanjournal.com or 503-399-6779. 
Follow her on X at@Tracy_Loew 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 1.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 1.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 7.8%Tracy Loew: 2.0%Statesman Journal: 0.8%Loss Aversion7.8%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 1.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%Tracy Loew: 3.3%Statesman Journal: 0.8%Pessimism Bias13.2%This article: 12.3%Tracy Loew: 6.1%Statesman Journal: 5.2%Negativity Bias12.3%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.2%Tracy Loew: 7.6%Statesman Journal: 0.8%Recency Bias15.2%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 2.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 1.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 3.3%Statesman Journal: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 1.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.4%Tracy Loew: 1.3%Statesman Journal: 0.6%Biased Writer Voice5.4%This article: 38.7%Tracy Loew: 16.7%Statesman Journal: 0.7%Indoctrination38.7%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tracy Loew: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Tracy Loew: 2.6%Statesman Journal: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.3%

204 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers62%attributed speech78writer words
Selected voice

DEQ

100%flagged-word coverage
100 attributed words79% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Indoctrination+79.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%DEQ: 79.0%79.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +21.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%DEQ: 21.0%21.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.1 ptsWriter: 14.1%DEQ: 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.