NBC News⁠99%

Man tossed by Yellowstone bison speaks out from hospital bed ⁠97%

7/21/2026, 12:54:01 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Self-Serving Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 43.5% saturation with 111 hits. Analysis detected 974 faulty-reasoning hits from 255 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 95.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠97% (585 of 18,896 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 96.90% of the video peer group.

Look out. A bison. 
>> The 65year-old man tossed into the air 
by a charging Yellowstone bison is now speaking out about the encounter. 
>> They move faster than you could ever imagine. He just kept coming and he was more aggressive. And as soon as he got off that tree, he launched me in the air. 
>> Boseman Health releasing this video where from his hospital bed, Carl McDaniel says he and his grandson were on a walk after dinner. 
>> We saw the bison and he was down. He wasn't showing aggression or anything like that until it picked a target. That target happened to be me. 
>> McDaniel says he was trying to protect his grandson who was unharmed before the bison charged at him. 
>> I didn't get bruises from him launching me in the air. It was the landing that came the problem. 
>> McDaniel is recovering from a fractured hip. His doctor showing just how severe the damage was. 
>> It was definitely clear that he had a pretty painful injury. It's actually broken in multiple pieces and you can see some fragments here. 
>> But despite those injuries, >> I always felt safe and secure. I I wasn't ever terrified. 
>> Looking back, McDaniel says he knows just how lucky he was. 
>> Even though I was on the ground, he could have stomped me. He could have gored me. Could have done anything. 
Camila Bernal, NBC News. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
3.1%
Availability Heuristic
34.1%
Representativeness Heuristic
4.7%
Hindsight Bias
15.7%
Overconfidence Bias
17.6%
Framing Effect
16.5%
Loss Aversion
8.6%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
11.4%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
43.5%
Self-Serving Bias
34.9%
Fundamental Attribution Error
18.4%
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
1.6%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
27.5%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
8.6%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
40.4%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
23.5%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
16.9%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
24.3%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
30.6%
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%

255 words analyzed.

Analysis

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