Update: One dead, two missing after boat sinks near Alcatraz ⁠7%

By The Standard Staff⁠4%

7/14/2026, 4:55:29 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Negativity Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 21.9% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 248 faulty-reasoning hits from 228 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23% and a BS Rank of ⁠7% (20,460 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.50% of the article peer group.

Search and rescue efforts continue Tuesday afternoon after a boat accident that killed at least one person occurred just off the coast of Alcatraz. 
The San Francisco Fire Department received a report of a pontoon boat in distress at 3:35 p.m. between Alcatraz and the Golden Gate Bridge. 
Officials said the three-decker pleasure boat carried 19 adult passengers. 
One person was found severely injured and later died. 
Two remain missing. 
One dog died in the incident. 
Thirteen passengers were brought to shore unharmed, and three others have been transferred to a California Pacific Medical Center hospital. 
Officials said they witnessed no fire when they responded to the vessel. 
By the time emergency crews arrived, two levels of the three-decker vessel were submerged. 
Injuries are mostly from the impact of falling and jumping into the water; there are no reports of burns, said SF Fire Chief Dean Crispen. 
It’s unclear if the boat was a commercial vessel or privately owned. 
Fire department officials said they believe it launched from near St. 
Francis Yacht Club. 
The missing passengers could be carried east by the tides and wind, Crispen said. 
The Oakland Police Department, the Coast Guard, and private vessels are assisting in the rescue and search. 
The conditions were windy with whitecaps. 
This story is developing and will be updated. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.1%The Standard Staff: 1.5%The San Francisco Standard: 0.8%Hindsight Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 6.8%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.4%The Standard Staff: 9.0%The San Francisco Standard: 7.2%Negativity Bias18.4%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%The Standard Staff: 0.9%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.9%The Standard Staff: 5.5%The San Francisco Standard: 3.3%Appeal to Authority21.9%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 5.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.6%The Standard Staff: 0.7%The San Francisco Standard: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion2.6%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 3.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.4%The Standard Staff: 2.9%The San Francisco Standard: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.4%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.6%The Standard Staff: 7.6%The San Francisco Standard: 1.3%Unattributed Quote20.6%This article: 11.0%The Standard Staff: 2.7%The San Francisco Standard: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection11.0%This article: 13.2%The Standard Staff: 3.3%The San Francisco Standard: 5.2%Biased Writer Voice13.2%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Standard Staff: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 2.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

228 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers40%attributed speech137writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageSan Francisco Fire Department • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDean Crispen • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSan Francisco Fire Department • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageDean Crispen • 14 words • 100.0% coverageOakland Police Department • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dean Crispen

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words43% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Quote-first Misdirection+64.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dean Crispen: 64.1%64.1%Unattributed Quote+19.8 ptsWriter: 16.1%Dean Crispen: 35.9%35.9%Biased Writer Voice-21.9 ptsWriter: 21.9%Dean Crispen: 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.