Nolan Wells' friends heard calling for help with boat in newly released audio from day teen vanished: report 30%

By Chris Bradford73%

7/16/2026, 5:59:36 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Biased Writer Voice, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 26.8% saturation with 56 hits. Analysis detected 253 faulty-reasoning hits from 209 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.6% and a BS Rank of 30% (15,516 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.90% of the article peer group.

Pals of the tragic teen Nolan Wells called for help when their boat suddenly malfunctioned and started taking on water, according to newly released audio from the day of his disappearance. 
Wells, 18, traveled with his friends to Horn Island from the Mississippi mainland for the Fourth of July holiday  but he wasn’t with the group for the return journey. 
Their boat  which had “like seven” people on board  experienced difficulty at around 4 p.m. 
“Hey, we’re at the west tip of Horn, and our bilge pump stopped working. 
We’re going. 
We’re sinking. 
Can you all please come?” 
the vessel’s operator said in audio obtained by NBC News. 
“I want to get this boat unsank and towed back.” 
The boat was then towed for around three miles before picking up normal speed less than an hour later, according to GPS data obtained by the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources and shared with NBC News. 
It returned to the location it originally departed at 5:44 p.m. 
Wells’ body was found two days later in the water, just off shore on the northwest end of the island, according to officials. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 4.1%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Chris Bradford: 2.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias8.1%This article: 1.0%Chris Bradford: 3.5%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic1.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 1.0%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.3%Chris Bradford: 1.5%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 3.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 10.7%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.4%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.4%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 1.7%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 1.7%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.8%Chris Bradford: 16.2%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias25.8%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 2.2%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.9%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 1.3%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 1.7%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 1.3%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.3%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 1.0%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.8%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 3.3%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.0%Chris Bradford: 4.4%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority22.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.6%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.4%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 4.9%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.1%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.3%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 11.5%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.8%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 3.3%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.9%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 3.8%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.8%Chris Bradford: 1.6%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.8%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.2%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.1%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 26.8%Chris Bradford: 4.8%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote26.8%This article: 12.4%Chris Bradford: 3.4%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection12.4%This article: 14.8%Chris Bradford: 11.6%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice14.8%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.5%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 3.5%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.8%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

209 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.8%attributed speech199writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageNBC News • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

NBC News

100%flagged-word coverage
10 attributed words100% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Unattributed Quote-28.1 ptsWriter: 28.1%NBC News: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-15.6 ptsWriter: 15.6%NBC News: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-13.1 ptsWriter: 13.1%NBC News: 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.