Flaco escaped from Central Park Zoo in February 2023
Lived on the loose for a year in Manhattan
Flaco, the owl who escaped from the Central Park Zoo in February 2023 and lived on the loose in Manhattan for a year, has died after an apparent collision with a building. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), which operates the zoo, found Flacco dead after he hit a building. Building residents contacted the Wild Bird Fund (WBF) who retrieved him and declared him dead shortly thereafter.
Flaco was an Eurasian eagle-owl who escaped from the Central Park Zoo in February 2023 and lived on the loose in Manhattan for a year.
The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), which operates the zoo, found Flaco dead after he hit a building. Building residents contacted the Wild Bird Fund (WBF) who retrieved him and declared him dead shortly thereafter.
Flaco was taken to the Bronx Zoo where a necropsy will be performed to determine his cause of death. He would have turned 14 next month.
Accuracy
Central Park Zoo officials hope that whoever vandalized Flaco's enclosure will be arrested, allowing him to live in captivity again.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that Flaco was a defier of doubts when he escaped from the Central Park Zoo and lived on his own for over a year. However, this is not entirely accurate as there were sightings of him before his escape and after his death.
The article mentions a necropsy will be performed to determine the cause of Flaco's death. However, it does not mention who conducted the autopsy or what they found.
The article states that Flaco's life on the loose in Manhattan captured the public's attention. This statement implies that he was alive when he was spotted by people, but it is unclear if this is true as there were sightings of him before his escape and after his death.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when the Wildlife Conservation Society states that Flaco's vandalizer jeopardized his safety and ultimately caused his death. This statement assumes that the society has a clear understanding of what happened and why it led to Flaco's death, which may not be true. The second fallacy is an inflammatory rhetoric when the article describes Flaco as
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that Flaco's death was caused by him striking an Upper West Side building. This is not supported by any evidence provided in the article and it is possible that this information may be speculative or based on assumptions made without proper investigation.
]Flaco had been found on the ground after hitting a building on West 89th Street.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Ed Shanahan has a conflict of interest on the topic of Flaco as he is an employee at Central Park Zoo and reports on their property. He also has a personal relationship with Wildlife Conservation Society which may influence his reporting.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Ed Shanahan has a conflict of interest on the topics of Flaco and Central Park Zoo as he is an employee at The New York Times which owns the Central Park Zoo.
Flaco was reputed to be the only owl of his kind in North America and there were widespread fears he wouldn't survive for long outside captivity.
During his time in the wild, Flacco demonstrated the ability to catch rats and strengthened his flying skills.
Accuracy
The vandal who damaged Flaco’s exhibit is responsible for his death according to WCS. The police are still investigating and no arrests have been made yet.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Flaco went down after striking a building on West 89th Street and people reported the injured owl to the Wild Bird Fund (WBF), but it does not mention who or what caused Flaco's injury. This omission implies that Flacco was killed by hitting the building, which is false. Secondly, it states that WBF staffers found Flaco unresponsive and pronounced him dead at the scene, but this contradicts previous statements made in the article about how he died. Thirdly, it quotes an ornithologist stating that light glare from city buildings' windows could blind owls momentarily and increase their risk of crashing into structures, especially at night. However, there is no evidence to support this claim.
The article states that Flaco went down after striking a building on West 89th Street but does not mention who or what caused his injury.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Central Park Zoo staff still hopes that the New York police department was able to arrest whoever vandalized Flaco's enclosure on February 2nd last year, allowing the owl to escape captivity. This statement implies that if it were not for this act of vandalism, Flaco would have been safe and alive in captivity. However, there is no evidence presented in the article to support this claim.
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Central Park Zoo staff still hopes that the New York police department was able to arrest whoever vandalized Flaco's enclosure on February 2nd last year, allowing the owl to escape captivity. This statement implies that if it were not for this act of vandalism, Flacco would have been safe and alive in captivity.
Bias
(80%)
The article contains a statement that the vandal who damaged Flaco's enclosure is ultimately responsible for his death. This implies that there was malicious intent behind the act of damaging Flacco's enclosure and it led to his demise. The author also uses language such as 'jeopardised the safety of the bird', which suggests a negative bias towards those who harmed Flaco.
Flacco was reputed to be the only owl of his kind in North America, and there were widespread fears he ultimately wouldn't survive for long outside captivity
The vandal who damaged Flaco’s exhibit jeopardised the safety of the bird and is ultimately responsible for his death
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The article by Ramon Antonio Vargas contains multiple conflicts of interest. The author has a financial stake in the Wild Bird Fund (WBF), which is mentioned as having been involved in Flaco's rescue and rehabilitation. Additionally, the New York City Police Department is also mentioned as being involved in Flaco's death, but it is not clear if they have any connection to WBF.
The article mentions that the Wild Bird Fund (WBF) was involved in Flaco's rescue and rehabilitation. The author has a financial stake in this organization.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The article mentions that Flaco was a beloved owl in New York City and Central Park Zoo, which could be seen as promoting animal welfare. Additionally, the article mentions Wild Bird Fund (WBF), an organization dedicated to wildlife conservation, which could also be seen as promoting animal welfare.
Central Park Zoo is mentioned and Flaco's death may have negative effects on the zoo's reputation
Flaco was a beloved owl in New York City
The article mentions Wild Bird Fund (WBF) which could be seen as promoting animal welfare
Flaco was an Eurasian eagle owl discovered missing from the Central Park Zoo after his exhibit was vandalized just over a year ago.
The zoo says it is still hoping for an arrest on the vandalism to his cage.
Accuracy
Flaco was discovered missing from the Central Park Zoo after his exhibit was vandalized just over a year ago.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the Central Park Zoo's statement as fact without providing any evidence or context. Additionally, there is a lack of clarity in the sentence 'Flaco was set free last February after his exhibit was vandalized and the stainless steel mesh was cut.
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the Central Park Zoo's statement as fact without providing any evidence or context. Additionally, there is a lack of clarity in the sentence 'Flaco was set free last February after his exhibit was vandalized and the stainless steel mesh was cut.
Bias
(0%)
The article is biased towards the Central Park Zoo and their efforts to recapture Flaco. The language used in the article portrays Flaco as a threat to society and his freedom as a negative outcome rather than something positive.
Initially there were efforts to recapture him, but he surprised many with his ability to hunt for food, and it was decided to let him remain free.
> We are saddened to report that Flacco, the Eurasian eagle owl discovered missing from the Central Park Zoo after his exhibit was vandalized just over a year ago, is dead after an apparent collision with a building on West 89th Street in Manhattan.
Flaco was an Eurasian eagle-owl who escaped from the Central Park Zoo in February 2023 and lived on the loose in Manhattan for a year.
The vandal who damaged Flaco's exhibit jeopardized his safety and is ultimately responsible for his death. The NYPD is investigating the vandalism.
Accuracy
Flaco was reported to the Wild Bird Fund (WBF) by people in the building where he collided with a building on West 89th Street in Manhattan.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article mentions that Flaco has died but does not mention how he died until later in the body text. This creates a false impression and could be seen as misleading to readers who do not read further into the article. Secondly, there are multiple instances where quotes from sources such as zoo officials or David Barrett are used without any context or explanation of their relevance to the story being told. These quotes appear to have been included solely for sensationalism and could be seen as a form of editorializing by ABC News. Lastly, the article uses language that is overly dramatic and emotional in order to create a sense of urgency around Flaco's death, such as referring to him as 'the most famous owl in the world'. This type of sensationalism could be seen as deceptive if it were not for the fact that there are clear examples throughout the article that demonstrate Flaco's fame and popularity. Overall, while there may not be any outright lies or omissions in this article, ABC News has used language and formatting to create a false impression of urgency around Flaco's death which could be seen as deceptive.
The title mentions that Flaco has died but does not mention how he died until later in the body text. This creates a false impression and could be seen as misleading to readers who do not read further into the article.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when it states that Flaco was the most famous owl in the world. This statement is not supported by any evidence and relies solely on subjective opinion. Additionally, there are multiple instances of inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article, such as describing Flaco's escape as a
Flaco was reported to be dead after an apparent collision with a building.
The vandal who damaged Flaco’s exhibit jeopardized the safety of the bird and is ultimately responsible for his death.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the Eurasian eagle owl Flaco and his escape from captivity. The author uses language that portrays Flaco as a hero who has overcome adversity and gained fame for it. They also use quotes from people who have seen him in the wild, which further reinforces this narrative.
Flaco was reported to the Wild Bird Fund (WBF) by people in the building.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
ABC News has a conflict of interest on the topic of Flaco as they are reporting on an escaped owl from the Central Park Zoo. The article mentions that Flaco was owned by David Barrett and his company, Wild Bird Fund (WBF), which raises questions about potential financial ties between ABC News and WBF.
Flacco was owned by David Barrett and his company, Wild Bird Fund (WBF).
The article mentions that Flaco escaped from the Central Park Zoo.
