Newsday⁠29%

LIPA files complaint over 50% price increase for use of undersea cable ⁠78%

By Jim Peppler⁠96% David L. Pokress⁠96% Drew Singh⁠96% Shari Einhorn⁠96%

8/4/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Loss Aversion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 68.6% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 128 faulty-reasoning hits from 51 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (6,175 of 27,321 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.40% of the article peer group.

Long Island's undersea powerline owners plan a 50% price hike by 2027, potentially costing ratepayers hundreds of millions, according to LIPA's federal complaint. 
NewsdayTV's Shari Einhorn has more. 
Credit: Newsday/Jim Peppler, David L. 
Pokress, Drew Singh with Shari Einhorn 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 68.6%Jim Peppler: 28.4%Newsday: 0.7%Anchoring Bias68.6%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 2.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.5%Jim Peppler: 28.9%Newsday: 4.4%Framing Effect23.5%This article: 45.1%Jim Peppler: 22.5%Newsday: 0.7%Loss Aversion45.1%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 68.6%Jim Peppler: 56.9%Newsday: 8.7%Negativity Bias68.6%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 3.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 1.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 11.3%Newsday: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 45.1%Jim Peppler: 11.3%Newsday: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice45.1%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Peppler: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

51 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker45%attributed speech28writer words
Selected voice

LIPA

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words100% of attributed speech43% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%LIPA: 100.0%100.0%

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.