News Wrap: CDC reports more measles cases so far this year ⁠84%

By Cascade PBS Staff⁠60%

7/24/2026, 7:00:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 153 faulty-reasoning hits from 82 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (4,883 of 29,795 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.60% of the article peer group.

In our news wrap Friday, the CDC says the U.S. has seen more cases of measles so far this year than in all of 2025, a massive outbreak linked to iceberg lettuce has expanded to four additional states, Iran responded to U.S. strikes by launching waves of attacks targeting American bases in the region and at least 10 people were killed by a Russian ballistic missile strike in the Kyiv region. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.6%Cascade PBS: 3.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.9%Cascade PBS: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 4.0%Cascade PBS: 4.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.2%Cascade PBS: 0.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.2%Cascade PBS: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.6%Cascade PBS: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 11.7%Cascade PBS: 12.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.3%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: 0.5%Cascade PBS: 0.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.4%Cascade PBS: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 18.9%Cascade PBS: 19.3%Negativity Bias100.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.1%Cascade PBS: 0.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.2%Cascade PBS: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.1%Cascade PBS: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.5%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: 3.0%Cascade PBS: 2.9%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: 2.3%Cascade PBS: 2.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.1%Cascade PBS: 0.1%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: 0.4%Cascade PBS: 0.4%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: 6.2%Cascade PBS: 6.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.6%Cascade PBS: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.4%Cascade PBS: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 86.6%Cascade PBS Staff: 5.5%Cascade PBS: 5.6%Hasty Generalization86.6%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.1%Cascade PBS: 0.9%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: 3.0%Cascade PBS: 2.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.3%Cascade PBS: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.0%Cascade PBS: 2.0%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: 0.4%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: 1.9%Cascade PBS: 2.9%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: 2.2%Cascade PBS: 2.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.2%Cascade PBS: 0.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 9.4%Cascade PBS: 9.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.4%Cascade PBS: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.0%Cascade PBS: 0.9%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: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

82 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker87%attributed speech11writer words
Selected voice

CDC

100%flagged-word coverage
71 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% 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.