Police: Fells Point checkpoints will continue; council member advises limits 64%

By Brian Carlton0% Chevall Pryce0%

7/23/2026, 2:05:49 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Framing Effect, and Status Quo Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 62.9% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 325 faulty-reasoning hits from 62 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.6% and a BS Rank of 64% (7,937 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.70% of the article peer group.

Baltimore Police officials told The Baltimore Sun they will continue using weekend roadblocks and checkpoint-style traffic controls as needed in Fells Point, doubling down on one of the city's most visible responses to "teen takeovers" and crime this summer. 
Subscribe to continue reading this article. 
Already subscribed? 
To log in, click here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 62.9%Brian Carlton: 41.9%Baltimore Sun: 1.7%Confirmation Bias62.9%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 62.9%Brian Carlton: 21.0%Baltimore Sun: 3.2%Availability Heuristic62.9%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 62.9%Brian Carlton: 26.3%Baltimore Sun: 4.1%Framing Effect62.9%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 62.9%Brian Carlton: 21.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Status Quo Bias62.9%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 62.9%Brian Carlton: 41.9%Baltimore Sun: 5.2%Negativity Bias62.9%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 3.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 62.9%Brian Carlton: 21.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.3%Recency Bias62.9%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 62.9%Brian Carlton: 21.0%Baltimore Sun: 2.2%Appeal to Authority62.9%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 21.0%Baltimore Sun: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 62.9%Brian Carlton: 21.0%Baltimore Sun: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice62.9%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Carlton: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 21.0%Brian Carlton: 11.3%Baltimore Sun: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…21.0%

62 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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