KTVU⁠26%

Feliz Fire in Mendocino County grows to more than 840 acres, prompts evacuation orders ⁠11%

8/1/2026, 5:27:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Anchoring Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Loss Aversion as the most egregious example at 29.2% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 479 faulty-reasoning hits from 277 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 19.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠11% (27,160 of 30,209 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.90% of the article peer group.

A brush fire erupted and quickly grew to over 840 acres in Mendocino County on Saturday afternoon, prompting evacuation orders as firefighters worked into the night to get the blaze under control. 
The brush fire– dubbed the Feliz Fire – broke out around 3:40 p.m. near Feliz Creek Road and Highway 101 in Hopland, about 15 miles south of Ukiah, and was reported to be about 200 acres by about 5 p.m. according to CAL FIRE . 
Around 7:55 p.m., CAL FIRE said the blaze grew to over 500 acres, and was 5% contained. 
Just after 9:50 p.m., CAL FIRE reported the fire was burning in 841 acres, and containment had not changed. 
The Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office issued evacuation warnings for Saracina Vineyards west to Hewlett Sturtevant Road and for Downtown Hopland, advising residents to be prepared to leave the area at a moment’s notice. 
Just before 7:45 p.m., the sheriff's deparftment also issued evacuation warnings for residents along County Road 110 to the Duncan Springs area. 
Authorities also issued evacuation orders for residents near Feliz Creek Road and County Road 110, advising community members to leave the area safely and without delay. 
Highway 101 was also closed from Burke Hill Road to State Route 175 due to the fire, Caltrans reported. 
United Disaster Relief of Northern California opened a Disaster Resource Center at 650 Babcock Lane in Ukiah for those who needed to leave their homes, providing a safe space to rest, charge electronics, make phone calls and get water. 
This is a developing story. 
Please stay with KTVU for updates. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%KTVU: 1.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 23.1%KTVU: 0.6%Anchoring Bias23.1%This article: 5.1%KTVU: 2.4%Availability Heuristic5.1%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 3.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 29.2%KTVU: 1.1%Loss Aversion29.2%This article: 2.2%KTVU: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.1%KTVU: 3.4%Optimism Bias14.1%This article: 11.9%KTVU: 1.3%Pessimism Bias11.9%This article: 5.1%KTVU: 4.9%Negativity Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.3%KTVU: 0.9%Recency Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 2.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 2.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.4%KTVU: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion9.4%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.2%KTVU: 1.5%Unattributed Quote16.2%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.1%KTVU: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice5.1%This article: 29.2%KTVU: 1.5%Indoctrination29.2%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%KTVU: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.1%

277 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers54%attributed speech128writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
55 attributed words37% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+79.7 ptsWriter: 20.3%Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-35.2 ptsWriter: 35.2%Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-10.9 ptsWriter: 10.9%Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office: 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.