Heartbreaking ending as body of missing 5-year-old girl found after she was swept away in Laguna Beach ⁠22%

By Ben Chapman⁠57% Brad Appleton⁠0%

6/11/2026, 9:16:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 34.1% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 473 faulty-reasoning hits from 252 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠22% (17,103 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.10% of the article peer group.

The body of a 5-year-old girl who was swept into the water by a massive wave in Laguna Beach has been recovered. 
The victim, identified as Amada Mia Brown of San Bernardino, was found during searches of the coastline on Thursday. 
The city said an aerial search by the Laguna Beach Police Department on Thursday led to the discovery. 
“The sighting occurred 250 to 300 yards offshore of Christmas Cove, which is located approximately one-quarter mile north of the area where the victim was initially swept into the ocean,” the city said in a statement. 
The US Coast Guard announced on Wednesday night that it had suspended its search. 
“Our deepest condolences go out to the child’s family and loved ones during this incredibly difficult time,” Capt. 
Stacey Crecy, commander of Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles-Long Beach, said in a statement. 
“Suspending a search is an extremely difficult decision. 
We launched assets and responded as quickly as possible, continuously searching throughout the night and until sunset on June 10, 2026. 
We worked hand-in-hand with first responders in Laguna Beach to carry out a coordinated and thorough search of the area,” Crecy continued. 
Footage obtained by The California Post showed the frantic search for the young girl Tuesday night as officials used high-powered flash lights from the shore and cliffside. 
Footage obtained by The California Post showed the frantic search for the young girl Tuesday night. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 4.4%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.1%Ben Chapman: 7.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic17.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.4%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.6%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 2.4%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Ben Chapman: 10.1%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.8%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 2.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Ben Chapman: 1.2%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias9.9%This article: 22.6%Ben Chapman: 18.4%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias22.6%This article: 17.1%Ben Chapman: 1.4%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias17.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.8%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.9%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.7%Ben Chapman: 1.3%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias10.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.1%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.1%Ben Chapman: 5.3%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority7.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.4%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 3.4%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.7%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.7%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 34.1%Ben Chapman: 10.1%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion34.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.5%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.5%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.1%Ben Chapman: 1.8%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal17.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 23.0%Ben Chapman: 2.0%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)23.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 3.4%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 3.3%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.1%Ben Chapman: 15.6%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice15.1%This article: 7.1%Ben Chapman: 2.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination7.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

252 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers63%attributed speech94writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageLaguna Beach Police Department • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageUS Coast Guard • 14 words • 0.0% coverageStacey Crecy • 18 words • 100.0% coverageStacey Crecy • 14 words • 0.0% coverageStacey Crecy • 8 words • 0.0% coverageStacey Crecy • 21 words • 100.0% coverageStacey Crecy • 22 words • 0.0% coverageThe California Post • 27 words • 0.0% coverageThe California Post • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

The California Post

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words27% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.1 ptsWriter: 18.1%The California Post: 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.