Catholic Charities South office in Brockton hit by stray bullet, police say 17%

By Madyline Swearing56%

7/22/2026, 12:46:14 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.1% saturation with 47 hits. Analysis detected 175 faulty-reasoning hits from 234 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.5% and a BS Rank of 17% (18,266 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.50% of the article peer group.

Catholic Charities South office in Brockton hit by stray bullet, police say 
A Catholic Charities office in Brockton was struck by a stray bullet after gunshots were fired in the surrounding area Tuesday afternoon, according to police. 
Officers responded to Catholic Charities South on Court Street at 1:47 p.m. to investigate a shooting. 
A bullet passed through an exterior wall of the building and entered an office, before striking an interior door, police said in a statement. 
Staff and clients were inside the building at the time, but no one was injured, a Catholic Charities spokesperson said in a statement. 
“Authorities have indicated that our building was not the intended target,” said Joe O’Connell, Catholic Charities senior director of communications. 
Officers searched the surrounding area for evidence, but no suspects have been identified, police said. 
Catholic Charities Boston, a leading social service provider in Eastern Massachusetts, provides a range of social services, including access to food, child care and emergency assistance to people in need. 
The Brockton office is one of 20 locations operated by the nonprofit in Greater Boston. 
“Our employees, who work tirelessly to serve the Brockton community through our food pantry, adult education, and elder outreach, are shaken by this frightening incident,” O’Connell said. 
The office will resume regular operations Wednesday morning, according to O’Connell. 
The investigation remains ongoing. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 3.8%Boston Globe: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.2%Boston Globe: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Madyline Swearing: 2.2%Boston Globe: 3.3%Availability Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.5%Boston Globe: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 3.0%Boston Globe: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.3%Boston Globe: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 8.9%Boston Globe: 5.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.6%Boston Globe: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Madyline Swearing: 1.7%Boston Globe: 2.0%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.3%Boston Globe: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.1%Madyline Swearing: 6.6%Boston Globe: 7.9%Negativity Bias20.1%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 4.8%Boston Globe: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 1.1%Boston Globe: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 8.4%Boston Globe: 4.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.8%Boston Globe: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.4%Boston Globe: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.4%Madyline Swearing: 1.7%Boston Globe: 3.8%Appeal to Authority6.4%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.4%Boston Globe: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 1.4%Boston Globe: 2.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 2.9%Boston Globe: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.5%Madyline Swearing: 7.7%Boston Globe: 5.5%Appeal to Emotion11.5%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.3%Boston Globe: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 3.3%Boston Globe: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.5%Boston Globe: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 1.3%Boston Globe: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 1.3%Boston Globe: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.6%Boston Globe: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.2%Boston Globe: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 1.4%Boston Globe: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.3%Boston Globe: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 12.8%Madyline Swearing: 2.0%Boston Globe: 2.1%Biased Writer Voice12.8%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.4%Boston Globe: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madyline Swearing: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Madyline Swearing: 0.4%Boston Globe: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…12.8%

234 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers44%attributed speech131writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJoe O’Connell • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageCatholic Charities Boston • 30 words • 100.0% coverageCatholic Charities Boston • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJoe O’Connell • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJoe O’Connell • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words44% of attributed speech0% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice+66.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Catholic Charities Boston: 66.7%66.7%Attempt to Sell a Product +66.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Catholic Charities Boston: 66.7%66.7%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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