Massachusetts Beach Town Essentially Banned American Flags for the Dumbest Reason ⁠58%

By Matt Vespa⁠79%

6/30/2026, 7:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Politically Right Leaning Bias, and Straw Man, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 22.9% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 303 faulty-reasoning hits from 284 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (9,025 of 21,230 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.50% of the article peer group.

Did the British take over this Massachusetts beach town? 
They told residents that flying the American flag over the Fourth of July weekend could screw with the birds. 
No, I’m not kidding. 
It’s our 250<sup>th</sup> birthday; screw the birds (via <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/massachusetts-homeowners-stunned-town-warns-july-4-flags-threaten-endangered-birds" target="_blank">Fox News</a>): 
Residents of a coastal Massachusetts town say that they were warned that flying flags on their own properties could violate endangered species laws, sparking outrage in the community just days before the nation's 250th anniversary. 
The letter, obtained by Fox News Digital, goes on to caution that "activities intended to deter protected shorebirds from utilizing suitable habitat may be viewed as harassment or disruption of normal feeding, nesting, or migratory behavior," which is prohibited under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, and "carry significant regulatory and financial penalties." 
[…] 
Town officials, however, told Fox News Digital they are not prohibiting patriotic displays. 
Newbury Town Administrator Tracy Blais said the town is "not in any way attempting to interfere with the property owner's rights to use their property or to restrict their use of their property for ordinary and patriotic purposes." 
According to Blais, the town merely agreed to a request from MassWildlife to help "spread the word" about protecting endangered species. 
No, the fact that this was even issued to residents is an atrocity. 
What the hell is going on here? 
&nbsp; 
<strong><em>Editor's Note:&nbsp;</em></strong><em>Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? 
Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.</em> 
<em>Join <a href="https://townhall.com/subscribe? 
tpcc=60sale&promo_code=FIGHT" target="_blank">Townhall VIP</a> and use promo code <strong>FIGHT</strong> to receive 60% off your membership.</em> 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 5.9%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.7%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.7%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.9%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.2%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.9%Townhall: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.9%Matt Vespa: 8.8%Townhall: 11.3%Framing Effect22.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.5%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.2%Townhall: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.3%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Matt Vespa: 13.9%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.2%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.5%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Matt Vespa: 5.3%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.8%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.1%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.8%Townhall: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.2%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Matt Vespa: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 6.5%Townhall: 5.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 8.8%Matt Vespa: 1.3%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man8.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 4.0%Townhall: 4.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 4.2%Matt Vespa: 2.3%Townhall: 2.0%False Dilemma4.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.5%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.3%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.9%Matt Vespa: 9.7%Townhall: 9.2%Hasty Generalization3.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.4%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.6%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.8%Matt Vespa: 9.4%Townhall: 11.3%Appeal to Emotion8.8%This article: 4.6%Matt Vespa: 2.5%Townhall: 2.3%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.0%Townhall: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.3%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.1%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.3%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.3%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.9%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.3%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 3.2%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.7%Matt Vespa: 2.9%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection6.7%This article: 4.6%Matt Vespa: 19.1%Townhall: 16.2%Biased Writer Voice4.6%This article: 8.1%Matt Vespa: 4.7%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination8.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.7%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Matt Vespa: 13.4%Townhall: 13.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias9.5%This article: 10.6%Matt Vespa: 5.5%Townhall: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.6%

284 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker13%attributed speech246writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageTracy Blais • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tracy Blais

0%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words100% of attributed speech67% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -12.2 ptsWriter: 12.2%Tracy Blais: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -11.0 ptsWriter: 11.0%Tracy Blais: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-9.3 ptsWriter: 9.3%Tracy Blais: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Tracy Blais: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%Tracy Blais: 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.