Two people shot as bullets fly inside Brooklyn music venue 9%

By Nicholas Williams58%

6/20/2026, 4:34:49 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 38.1% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 252 faulty-reasoning hits from 126 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25% and a BS Rank of 9% (20,111 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.90% of the article peer group.

Two people were shot inside a Brooklyn music venue early Friday morning, cops said. 
A barrage of bullets flew inside Brooklyn Monarch around 2:38 a.m. near Meadow and Bogart Sts. in Williamsburg leaving a 33-year-old man shot in the thigh and an unidentified man shot in the left arm, hip and buttocks. 
The victims made their way from the 30,000-square-foot venue to Woodhull Hospital by private means, where they were in stable condition. 
The gunman fled on foot after the shooting. 
Cops released photos of the suspect in hopes the public recognizes him. 
No arrests have been made. 
Anyone with information regarding this incident is asked to call the NYPD’s Crime Stoppers Hotline at 1-800-577-TIPS (8477). 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 2.4%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 3.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 38.1%Nicholas Williams: 5.0%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect38.1%This article: 14.3%Nicholas Williams: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion14.3%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.5%Nicholas Williams: 1.5%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 38.1%Nicholas Williams: 8.1%newyorkdailynews: 9.8%Negativity Bias38.1%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 6.2%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 2.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 38.1%Nicholas Williams: 6.6%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion38.1%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 2.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 3.4%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.5%Nicholas Williams: 2.3%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote9.5%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 38.1%Nicholas Williams: 4.1%newyorkdailynews: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice38.1%This article: 14.3%Nicholas Williams: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination14.3%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

126 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.