Wildfires destroy hundreds of buildings in Washington state ⁠5%

By Cascade PBS Staff⁠59%

8/3/2026, 6:15:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 1 faulty reasoning type, including Negativity Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 52.2% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 35 faulty-reasoning hits from 67 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 13.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠5% (26,687 of 27,866 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.80% of the article peer group.

Wildfires destroy hundreds of buildings, displace tens of thousands in Washington state 
Firefighters are battling a series of blazes that began this weekend in Washington state and are continuing to burn in and around Spokane, the state’s second most populous city. 
Tens of thousands of people have been displaced and hundreds of buildings have been destroyed. 
Stephanie Sy reports. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.4%Cascade PBS: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.5%Cascade PBS: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 3.4%Cascade PBS: 4.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%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: 0.4%Cascade PBS: 0.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 11.6%Cascade PBS: 11.9%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.4%Cascade PBS: 0.3%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: 0.6%Cascade PBS: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.7%Cascade PBS: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 52.2%Cascade PBS Staff: 20.1%Cascade PBS: 20.4%Negativity Bias52.2%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.1%Cascade PBS: 0.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.1%Cascade PBS: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.2%Cascade PBS: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.6%Cascade PBS: 0.5%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: 3.4%Cascade PBS: 3.2%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: 2.6%Cascade PBS: 2.5%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: 0.5%Cascade PBS: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 7.0%Cascade PBS: 6.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.2%Cascade PBS: 0.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.5%Cascade PBS: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 5.5%Cascade PBS: 5.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.3%Cascade PBS: 1.1%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: 3.2%Cascade PBS: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.3%Cascade PBS: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.2%Cascade PBS: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.1%Cascade PBS: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.3%Cascade PBS: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%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: 0.8%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: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.8%Cascade PBS: 3.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 2.3%Cascade PBS: 2.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.2%Cascade PBS: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 10.4%Cascade PBS: 9.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.9%Cascade PBS: 2.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.3%Cascade PBS: 1.1%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: 1.0%Cascade PBS: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

67 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.5%attributed speech64writer words
Selected voice

Stephanie Sy

0%flagged-word coverage
3 attributed words100% of attributed speech55% 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…
Loading…

Analysis

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