ABC News⁠98%

Bison attacks tourist at Yellowstone Park ⁠91%

7/13/2026, 12:45:13 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 24.8% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 191 faulty-reasoning hits from 234 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 87.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (1,368 of 14,814 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 90.80% of the video peer group.

Now to the frightening scene at Yellowstone National Park. 
A grandfather out on a walk with his grandson. 
Was attacked by a charging bison and thrown at least eight feet into the air. 
He was injured but is expected to be okay. 
ABC's Melissa Dunn has the latest tonight. 
These are the heartstoppping moments a grandfather was attacked by a bison at Yellowstone National Park. 
The dramatic video posted online by a professional photographer shows a bison which can weigh more than500 lb charging after the 65year-old flipping him into the air. 
You see the man and his grandchild stop to take photos of the bison. 
Second later, the massive mammal then charges, chasing the family around trees before the man is thrown multiple feet into the air, seriously injuring him. 
>> A bison. 
Another video shows the bison running past tents at a campsite before the incident. 
The grandfather is lucky to be alive. 
Millions of people visit Yellowstone every year to see the park's famous wildlife. 
Unfortunately, this is not the first time we've seen bison charging tourists. 
As for that 65year-old, he was hospitalized and is recovering from his injuries. 
Yellowstone National Park warns people to keep at least 25 yards away from bison at all times, and if too close, you are warned to retreat immediately. 
Lindsay, so glad to hear he'll be okay. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
17.1%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
3%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
24.8%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
13.2%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
5.1%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
5.1%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
13.2%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

234 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers15%attributed speech200writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
0%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words79% of attributed speech59% 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.

Analysis

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