3 shot on Near West Side - Chicago Sun-Times 12%

By Sun-Times Wire5%

7/12/2026, 9:06:05 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Unattributed Quote, and Anchoring Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 33.3% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 278 faulty-reasoning hits from 195 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.3% and a BS Rank of 12% (19,439 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.80% of the article peer group.

Police tape at an armored car robbery. 
| Brian Jackson~Sun-Times 
Three people were shot early Sunday on the Near West Side, police said. 
Two women, ages 35 and 36, were sitting in a parked vehicle near the United Center in the 100 block of South Honore Street around 2:20 a.m. when a silver sedan approached and someone inside the car fired shots, according to Chicago police. 
The younger woman was shot in the head and was taken to Stroger Hospital in critical condition. 
The older woman suffered a graze wound to the head and was listed in good condition at Stroger. 
A man on the scene was also shot in the right leg. 
He went to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was also listed in good condition. 
No one is in custody and detectives are investigating. 
Chicago Public Media 
Man critically wounded in Chicago Lawn shooting 
Boy, 16, injured in Garfield Ridge shooting 
Officer fires at vehicle during large overnight gathering in Grant Park 
Boy hospitalized after shooting in Austin 
Two women shot overnight in Garfield Ridge 
Man found dead with gunshot wound in Roseland home 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 22.1%Sun-Times Wire: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Anchoring Bias22.1%This article: 6.7%Sun-Times Wire: 2.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Availability Heuristic6.7%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Sun-Times Wire: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Framing Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.6%Sun-Times Wire: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Optimism Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 33.3%Sun-Times Wire: 12.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 7.9%Negativity Bias33.3%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Sun-Times Wire: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Recency Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 28.7%Sun-Times Wire: 4.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.8%Appeal to Authority28.7%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.6%Sun-Times Wire: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof4.6%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.6%Sun-Times Wire: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.6%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 24.1%Sun-Times Wire: 6.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.8%Unattributed Quote24.1%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.6%Sun-Times Wire: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice3.6%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

195 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers3.1%attributed speech189writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageBrian Jackson • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageChicago Public Media • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Brian Jackson

0%flagged-word coverage
3 attributed words50% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote-24.9 ptsWriter: 24.9%Brian Jackson: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%Brian Jackson: 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.