Multiple people injured after mass shooting at New Jersey Chick-fil-A: report ⁠7%

By Michael Sinkewicz⁠42%

4/12/2026, 4:33:37 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Framing Effect, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32% saturation with 74 hits. Analysis detected 490 faulty-reasoning hits from 231 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠7% (20,542 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.90% of the article peer group.

Police are investigating a mass shooting at a Chick-fil-A restaurant in New Jersey Saturday evening, according to reports. 
The shooting took place at a Chick-fil-A in Union, New Jersey, according to NJ.com. 
It was not immediately clear how many people were shot or the extent of their injuries, but RLS Media reported at least six people were shot. 
"This is an active and ongoing investigation," a spokesperson for the Union County Prosecutor's Office told the outlet. 
"More information will be released as it becomes available." 
MCDONALD'S TRASH DUTY DISPUTE ESCALATES TO MANAGER ALLEGEDLY SHOOTING TEEN EMPLOYEE'S MOM IN RESTAURANT 
An undisclosed Chick-fil-A location with a drive-thru. 
(Chick-fil-A) 
Officers responded to a reported shooting just after 8:45 p.m. on Route 22 near Gelb Avenue, according to CBS New York. 
A man who said his girlfriend works at the restaurant told the outlet that she said a group of men entered the store, went behind the counter and allegedly fired multiple shots. 
Authorities remained at the scene late Saturday, with officers and employees seen inside the restaurant while additional officers canvassed the parking lot. 
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE 
FOX Business has reached out to the Union County Prosecutor's Office and Union police for additional information. 
Chick-fil-A's corporate office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.3%Michael Sinkewicz: 1.6%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias11.3%This article: 7.8%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 3.4%Anchoring Bias7.8%This article: 6.1%Michael Sinkewicz: 2.3%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 2.5%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 21.6%Michael Sinkewicz: 5.4%FoxBusiness: 12.9%Framing Effect21.6%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.4%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 3.2%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 32.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 5.2%FoxBusiness: 7.9%Negativity Bias32.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 2.4%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error13.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 1.8%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Michael Sinkewicz: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias6.1%This article: 9.1%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect9.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 2.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 30.7%Michael Sinkewicz: 3.5%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority30.7%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.3%Michael Sinkewicz: 3.1%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization11.3%This article: 6.1%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring6.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 4.7%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 2.4%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.9%Michael Sinkewicz: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal13.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.1%Michael Sinkewicz: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice6.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 1.5%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Michael Sinkewicz: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.0%

231 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers25%attributed speech174writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageUnion County Prosecutor's Office • 18 words • 0.0% coverageUnion County Prosecutor's Office • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageChick-fil-A • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageFOX Business • 17 words • 0.0% coverageChick-fil-A • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chick-fil-A

92%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words23% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -13.2 ptsWriter: 13.2%Chick-fil-A: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Chick-fil-A: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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