Memorial to Burge torture victims is about acknowledging pain, healing 41%

By Natalie Y. Moore49%

7/24/2026, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Optimism Bias, and Halo Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.8% saturation with 107 hits. Analysis detected 979 faulty-reasoning hits from 602 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.6% and a BS Rank of 41% (12,963 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.20% of the article peer group.

Public memorials reflect whom a city chooses to remember. 
Memorializing ugly historical truths is a chance for public healing. 
Chicago is reckoning with both. 
Earlier this month, the city broke ground on a decade-old promise  the Chicago Torture Justice Memorial , a permanent structure in the Washington Park neighborhood recognizing survivors of police torture under former Chicago Police Cmdr. 
Jon Burge. 
For 20 years, beginning in 1973, Burge and other police officers at the Area 2 station beat, suffocated and electrically shocked more than 100 Black and Brown folks for dirty confessions. 
Once completed, the concrete circular structure will include a timeline and names of survivors. 
Anthony Holmes is a survivor and reparations recipient who advocated for the memorial. 
“This is everything we've been trying to tell people. 
This is our truth,” Holmes said. 
When the monument is completed next year, neighbors “can feel it and enjoy it, even though it's got a lot of sadness in it.” 
In-depth political coverage, sports analysis, entertainment reviews and cultural commentary. 
In 2015, the City Council passed a reparations ordinance that awarded Burge survivors an apology from the city, a pool of money, mental health therapy and free tuition to city colleges for them and family members. 
Chicago Public Schools eighth graders and 10th graders learn about the Burge saga. 
Now the final piece of the package is the nation’s first permanent remembrance to survivors of police torture. 
The timing was delayed but now opportune. 
As the country celebrates 250 years of the Declaration of Independence, democracy is fragile. 
Commemorative T-shirts, fireworks and waxing about American exceptionalism are on full patriotic display. 
All men (not to mention women) were not considered equal to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in 1776. 
The Trump administration labels history as anti-American ideology in K-12 classrooms. 
White supremacists and their allies push for book bans, stripping college curriculum and attacking scholars  anything critical of the United States. 
Ignoring the truth about this country is unpatriotic. 
The memorial to Burge torture victims isn’t. 
“We are proud that here in Chicago. 
We are actually being honest about that past, and that in and of itself is something to celebrate. 
And we're grateful that so many people in Chicago are on board with that and understand how important that is,” said Jen Ash, executive director at the Chicago Torture Justice Memorial Foundation. 
The fight for justice incorporated art in its early days of radical imagination. 
An exhibition of memorial proposals in 2019 showcased six submissions from commissioned artists. 
The winner of "Still Here: Torture, Resiliency, and the Art of Memorializing” exhibition was the team consisting of artist Patricia Nguyen and architectural designer John Lee. 
Chicago architect John Gay will lead construction of the $4.7 million memorial based on the duo's design. 
In 2020, Chicago and other cities around the country evaluated how to manage the racist symbolism of public statues. 
Public sentiment no longer desired for confederate tributes, odes to segregationists and honoring colonizers. 
The Mellon Foundation  which assisted financially for the Chicago Torture Justice Memorial  is funding other Chicago projects such as honoring gospel legend Mahalia Jackson and marking the 1919 race riots. 
Commissioning new landmarks is an opportunity to use physical public history for engagement, because tearing down a Christopher Columbus statue isn’t enough. 
But erecting a memorial to Chicagoans who endured unfathomable abuse is a start. 
And is aligned with democracy. 
Natalie Y. 
Moore is a senior lecturer at Northwestern University. 
Send letters to letters@suntimes.com . 
More about how to submit here . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.8%Natalie Y. Moore: 2.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.0%Confirmation Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Natalie Y. Moore: 2.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Availability Heuristic8.3%This article: 1.5%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic1.5%This article: 1.2%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Natalie Y. Moore: 10.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Framing Effect7.8%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Status Quo Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.3%Natalie Y. Moore: 6.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Optimism Bias14.3%This article: 3.2%Natalie Y. Moore: 3.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Pessimism Bias3.2%This article: 17.8%Natalie Y. Moore: 8.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 7.9%Negativity Bias17.8%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.2%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.2%This article: 4.8%Natalie Y. Moore: 1.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%In-Group Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 4.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Halo Effect13.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.5%Natalie Y. Moore: 3.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.8%Appeal to Authority9.5%This article: 4.8%Natalie Y. Moore: 2.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%False Dilemma4.8%This article: 2.3%Natalie Y. Moore: 2.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope2.3%This article: 0.8%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.8%This article: 6.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 5.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.6%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.3%Natalie Y. Moore: 1.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Bandwagon5.3%This article: 16.9%Natalie Y. Moore: 5.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.5%Appeal to Emotion16.9%This article: 2.5%Natalie Y. Moore: 2.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Begging the Question2.5%This article: 1.2%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.2%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.5%Natalie Y. Moore: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Composition/Division3.5%This article: 5.1%Natalie Y. Moore: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Anecdotal5.1%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.8%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.8%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.2%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground2.2%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.7%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection1.7%This article: 3.8%Natalie Y. Moore: 3.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice3.8%This article: 5.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 2.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Indoctrination5.0%This article: 3.7%Natalie Y. Moore: 7.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.7%This article: 1.8%Natalie Y. Moore: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias1.8%This article: 2.0%Natalie Y. Moore: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.0%

602 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers16%attributed speech506writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAnthony Holmes • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAnthony Holmes • 6 words • 0.0% coverageAnthony Holmes • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageJen Ash • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJen Ash • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJen Ash • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jen Ash

100%flagged-word coverage
57 attributed words59% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Indoctrination-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Jen Ash: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Jen Ash: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Jen Ash: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%Jen Ash: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Jen Ash: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%Jen Ash: 0.0%0.0%

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.