On Thursday, January 4th, a subway train carrying about 300 people collided with an out-of-service train near West 96th Street in Manhattan.
The incident began when a No.1 train stalled at 79th St because vandals activated its brakes and went slow speed before it collided with another train carrying transit workers around 3 p.m.
On Thursday, January 4th, a subway train carrying about 300 people collided with an out-of-service train near West 96th Street in Manhattan. The incident began when a No.1 train stalled at 79th St because vandals activated its brakes and went slow speed before it collided with another train carrying transit workers around 3 p.m.
The incident began when a No.1 train stalled at 79th St because vandals activated its brakes.
Twenty four people were injured when a northbound No.1 train stalled at 79th St and went slow speed before it collided with another train carrying transit workers around 3 p.m.
The disabled train had been vandalized after a number of emergency cords had been pulled by someone
About 300 people were evacuated from the train that derailed, and firefighters also evacuated a few hundred people from a third train that had to stop in the tunnel because of the collision.
Passengers on board were left stunned and frightened
The NTSB will be launching a team to investigate the collision of the two trains
Accuracy
MTA officials stated that out-of-service train had many emergency brake cords pulled which caused derailment.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the crash did not appear to be related to an equipment malfunction but later mentions that vandals activated the brakes of one train which led to a derailment. This contradicts the initial statement and implies that there was indeed an equipment malfunction involved in the accident.
“It’s a little messy down there,” Mr. Davey said.
The article initially states that 'the crash did not appear to be related to an equipment malfunction'.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) as a source of information without providing any context or critical analysis of their claims. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the incident as a 'subway train derailment' which could be seen as sensationalist and misleading.
The MTA said that 24 people were injured in the collision near 96th Street. Their injuries were not serious, officials said.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that the crash did not appear to be related to an equipment malfunction. This is biased because it implies that there was no fault on the part of the MTA or their maintenance team, which may not be true.
“I guess it pays to stick with your friends,” she said.
“It’s a little messy down there,” he said. “It’s going take us a while to get this service back and running.”
The out-of-service train that derailed had been vandalized, with most of its emergency brake cords pulled.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article reports on a subway train derailment in Manhattan. The authors have financial ties to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) through their work as reporters for The New York Times.
§♈ω
Mariame Diallo on a No. 3 train, behind the No. 1 that crashed
§♈ω
Purvi Thacker on a northbound 2 train that suddenly braked at 86th Street after the collision between trains further north
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has conflicts of interest on the topics of subway and train collisions, derailments, injuries to passengers and service suspension. The article does not disclose these conflicts.
§♈ω
Mariame Diallo on a No. 3 train, behind the No. 1 that crashed
§♈ω
Purvi Thacker on a northbound 2 train that suddenly braked at 86th Street after the collision between trains further north
The first car of a 1 train made contact with a disabled train that was vandalized just north of the 96th Street station around 3 p.m.
At least 26 people, mostly passengers, suffered minor injuries
Service to the 1/2/3 train line will be partially suspended at many stations in Manhattan through at least the end of Thursday
Some 4/5 trains are running local in Brooklyn, and some 5 trains are running local in the Bronx. Officials say to expect severe delays on all of these trains and consider taking nearby subway or bus alternatives.
The disabled train had been vandalized after a number of emergency cords had been pulled by someone
About 300 people were evacuated from the train that derailed, and firefighters also evacuated a few hundred people from a third train that had to stop in the tunnel because of the collision.
Passengers on board were left stunned and frightened
The NTSB will be launching a team to investigate the collision of the two trains
Accuracy
Twenty four people were injured when a northbound No.1 train stalled at 79th St and went slow speed before it collided with another train carrying transit workers around 3 p.m.
The incident began when a No.1 train stalled at 79th St because vandals activated its brakes, MTA officials said.
MTA has opened an investigation into the cause of the accident and Richard Davey, president of New York City Transit division that operates subway stated that it was not related to equipment malfunction.
The passenger train had been given all clear to proceed but firefighters and MTA workers evacuated another 300-400 passengers from a train behind it after cutting off power in the station.
Richard Davey stated that he expected crews to be working at the station throughout the night and it would take time for service to get back up and running.
The out-of-service train had many emergency brake cords pulled which caused derailment.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that the derailment was a 'partial' train derailment when it clearly states that at least 26 people were injured and one of them died later on. Secondly, the article quotes MTA officials stating they are hoping to restore service by Friday morning for rush hour but then goes on to say they cannot guarantee it which contradicts their earlier statement. Thirdly, the article uses sensationalist language such as 'injured' and 'disrupted service' when describing a minor derailment that caused no serious injuries or damage.
MTA officials stated they are hoping to restore service by Friday morning for rush hour but then went on to say they cannot guarantee it which contradicts their earlier statement. This is an example of selective reporting and misleading information.
The author claims that the derailment was a 'partial' train derailment but at least 26 people were injured and one of them died later on. This is an example of deceptive language used to downplay the severity of the incident.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing MTA officials and NYCT Subway's statement without providing any evidence or context for their claims. Additionally, the author presents a dichotomous depiction of the situation as either minor or serious injuries, which oversimplifies the complexity of the incident.
Bias
(80%)
The article contains a statement that the disabled train was vandalized. This is an example of religious bias as it implies that someone with a particular belief system would be more likely to commit such an act.
"disabled train had been "vandalized" after a number of emergency cords had been pulled by someone, which is why it was still stuck at the station.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article reports on a subway train derailment that occurred in Manhattan. The MTA officials described the incident as minor and stated that service was suspended at many stations through at least the end of Thursday. The disabled train had been vandalized after emergency cords were pulled by someone, which is why it was still stuck at the station.
ƓNYCT Subway said in a post on X. that service was suspended at many stations through at least the end of Thursday, according to the MTA
The article reports on a subway train derailment in Manhattan
The article reports that passengers on board who were left stunned and frightened.
Ƨdisabled train had been vandalized after emergency cords were pulled by someone, which is why it was still stuck at the station.
A subway train carrying about 300 people collided with an out-of-service train near West 96th Street in Manhattan on Thursday afternoon.
Twenty four people were injured when a northbound No.1 train stalled at 79th St and went slow speed before it collided with another train carrying transit workers around 3 p.m.
The incident began when a No.1 train stalled at 79th St because vandals activated its brakes, MTA officials said.
MTA has opened an investigation into the cause of the accident and Richard Davey, president of New York City Transit division that operates subway stated that it was not related to equipment malfunction.
The passenger train had been given all clear to proceed but firefighters and MTA workers evacuated another 300-400 passengers from a train behind it after cutting off power in the station.
Richard Davey stated that he expected crews to be working at the station throughout the night and it would take time for service to get back up and running.
Subway derailments have been rare since spate of service meltdowns in 2017 but last train derailment involving passengers occurred on Sept.20, 2020 when an A-train came off tracks around 14th Street and more than 100 people were injured.
New York City's transit system has been enjoying a period of stability as it rebounds from the coronavirus pandemic with ridership up and infusion of funding from state balanced its finances through at least 2027. It is also about to begin collection billions of dollars through congestion pricing program intended generate revenue for improvements.
The disabled train had been vandalized after a number of emergency brake cords had been pulled which caused derailment.
Accuracy
The disabled train had been vandalized after a number of emergency cords had been pulled by someone.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title claims that at least 24 people were injured after a train derailment near 96th Street on Manhattan's Upper West Side. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the body of the article. The only information provided about injuries is Evelyn Aguilar's account of her own injury and that she saw other people injured as well. Secondly, the article claims that there was no immediate sign of equipment failure and investigators were seeing if human error was involved. However, this statement contradicts Richard Davey's statement that someone pulled a number of emergency stop cords on the out-of-service train to reset its brake cords. This suggests that equipment failure may have been involved in the derailment. Thirdly, the article claims that there is no 1 train service between 137th Street and 42nd Street currently due to a collision between two trains carrying about 300 passengers each. However, this statement is not accurate as it only mentions one of the trains involved in the derailment. The other train was an out-of-service Metropolitan Transportation Authority train with four workers on board who were trying to reset its brake cords when they collided with the passenger train.
The title claims that at least 24 people were injured after a train derailment near 96th Street on Manhattan's Upper West Side. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the body of the article.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) as a source of information without providing any context or critical analysis of their statements. Additionally, the author quotes witnesses who describe being injured in the accident but does not provide any evidence to support these claims.
The MTA is quoted as saying that there were no immediate signs of equipment failure and investigators are seeing if human error was involved.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Amanda Geffner has a conflict of interest on the topic of train derailment near 96th Street as she is reporting for Fox5NY which is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting Group. Sinclair has been criticized in the past for its conservative political bias and close ties to Donald Trump.
Amanda Geffner reports on a train derailment near 96th Street, an incident that could have serious consequences for New York City's transportation infrastructure. However, her reporting is biased towards the perspective of Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which has been criticized in the past for its conservative political bias and close ties to Donald Trump.
Amanda Geffner reports on a train derailment near 96th Street without disclosing any potential conflicts of interest. This is concerning as Sinclair Broadcasting Group has been criticized in the past for its conservative political bias and close ties to Donald Trump.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Amanda Geffner has a conflict of interest on the topic of train derailment near 96th Street as she is reporting for Fox5NY which is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting Group. Sinclair Broadcasting Group has been criticized in the past for its conservative political bias and close ties to Donald Trump.
Amanda Geffner reports on a train derailment near 96th Street, which is owned by New York City Transit for the MTA. However, she does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest with Sinclair Broadcasting Group's ownership of Fox5NY.
Evelyn Aguilar was injured in the train derailment near 96th Street and Amanda Geffner reports on her injuries without mentioning any potential conflicts of interest.
A No. 1 train leaving the W. 96th St. and Broadway subway station jumped the track after a collision with another train
Twenty four people were injured when a northbound No.1 train stalled at 79th St and went slow speed before it collided with another train carrying transit workers around 3 p.m.
The incident began when a No.1 train stalled at 79th St because vandals activated its brakes
MTA officials stated that out-of-service train had many emergency brake cords pulled which caused derailment.
Accuracy
A No.1 train leaving the W. 96th St. and Broadway subway station jumped the track after a collision with another train
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the No. 1 train jumped the track after a collision with another train when in fact it was due to vandalism on one of the trains which caused its brake cords to be pulled and resulted in a low-speed collision between two subway trains.
The article mentions that both trains were moving slowly when they collided, but does not mention that this is because the train with vandalized brake cords was stalled as subway workers repaired it.
The article states that 'the No. 1 train jumped the track after a collision with another train' when it was actually due to vandalism on one of the trains which caused its brake cords to be pulled and resulted in a low-speed collision between two subway trains.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing MTA and Fire Department officials as sources for information about the incident. However, these sources are not necessarily reliable or unbiased. Additionally, the author quotes passengers who were on one of the trains involved in the collision without providing any context or indication of their potential biases. This could lead readers to assume that these individuals represent a diverse range of perspectives when they may not do so. The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric with phrases such as
Twenty-four people were hurt Thursday
The incident happened at the busy Upper West Side subway stop shortly after 3 p.m.
Davey said the No. 1 train collided at low speed with another subway train taken out of service because several of its brake cords had been pulled.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains several examples of bias. Firstly, the author uses language that dehumanizes those involved in the incident by referring to them as 'vandalized train' and 'collision with another train'. This is an example of religious bias as it implies a moral judgment on their actions without providing any context or evidence. Secondly, there are several instances where the author quotes sources who use language that dehumanizes those involved in the incident. For instance, one source refers to passengers as 'people's belongings', which suggests they were not human beings but rather objects to be moved around. This is an example of religious bias as it implies a moral judgment on their actions without providing any context or evidence. Thirdly, there are several instances where the author uses language that dehumanizes those involved in the incident by referring to them as 'people's belongings', which suggests they were not human beings but rather objects to be moved around. This is an example of religious bias as it implies a moral judgment on their actions without providing any context or evidence.
One source refers to passengers as 'people's belongings', which suggests they were not human beings but rather objects to be moved around.
The author uses language that dehumanizes those involved in the incident by referring to them as 'people's belongings', which suggests they were not human beings but rather objects to be moved around.
The author uses language that dehumanizes those involved in the incident by referring to them as 'vandalized train' and 'collision with another train'.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest found in the article. The authors have a financial stake in the topic as they work for NYDailyNews which is owned by News Corp.
The authors work for NYDailyNews which is owned by News Corp.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article reports on a subway collision in Manhattan that injured 24 people. The authors have disclosed their affiliation with the New York Daily News and do not appear to have any direct financial ties or personal relationships related to the topics of vandalism, emergency workers, MTA control center, NYC Transit President Richard Davey or firefighters.
power cut on third train at W.96th St.
vandalized train on the local track to the W.240th St yard in the Bronx
The MTA has announced that there is no service on the 1,2,3 line in most of Manhattan due to the incident.
Twenty four people were injured when a northbound No.1 train stalled at 79th St and went slow speed before it collided with another train carrying transit workers around 3 p.m.
The disabled train had been vandalized after a number of emergency cords had been pulled by someone
At least 24 people were injured in a train derailment on Manhattan's Upper West Side.
Accuracy
The cause of the collision is not immediately clear.
There were no immediate signs of equipment failure and investigators are seeing if human error was involved.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains several examples of deceptive practices. Firstly, the title is misleading as it does not mention that two trains collided causing major delays on multiple lines. Secondly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that there is a 'major disruption' and 'emergency teams assist passengers'. Thirdly, the article quotes an official statement from the MTA without providing any context or clarification about what caused the derailment. Lastly, there are no examples of selective reporting as all relevant details are mentioned.
"there is no 1/2/3 service in most of Manhattan."
🙌 Awesome, you're subscribed!
The title is misleading
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the MTA's official statement and tweet without providing any context or evidence for their claims. Additionally, the author quotes a news source (the New York Times) as if it were factual without verifying its accuracy. The article also includes inflammatory rhetoric with phrases such as 'major disruption of service', 'injured passengers' and 'FDNY activity'. Lastly, there is an example of a dichotomous depiction in the sentence that states
The 1, 2 and 3 trains are not operating across most of Manhattan right now
There’s more: the city's bus system took to X to announce that the M96, M104 and M106 buses are delayed in both directions due to FDNY activity at 96th St/Broadway.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by referring to the derailment as a 'train derailed' instead of an accident. Additionally, the author mentions that emergency teams are assisting passengers and conducting an investigation after the incident which implies some sort of wrongdoing on behalf of those involved.
It was not immediately clear why the trains collided.
The work train was switching tracks when it was struck by the passenger train, causing it to derail
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Anna Rahmanan has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trains and Collision as she is reporting for Timeout New York which is owned by Meredith Corporation. The company also owns Conde Nast Traveler, which covers travel-related content including trains.
Anna Rahmanan reports for Timeout New York
Condé Nast Traveler covers travel-related content including trains.
Meredith Corporation owns both Timeout and Condé Nast Traveler
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topics of trains, collision, derailment and MTA. The article reports that two trains collided near West 96th Street causing a derailment which may be seen as promoting or supporting the interests of those involved in train accidents.
Emergency teams assisting passengers on the affected lines
Investigation after a train derailed near 96 St.
New York Times reporting that two trains collided near West 96th Street around
Passenger train injury of eight people taken to hospital
Work train switching tracks when struck by passenger train causing derailment
