Two killed in Hammond motorcycle crash near Chanell Shopping Center, police say 5%

By Sam Karlin87%

7/19/2026, 7:52:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote and Confirmation Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 31.9% saturation with 36 hits. Analysis detected 80 faulty-reasoning hits from 113 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 19.2% and a BS Rank of 5% (20,959 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.80% of the article peer group.

Two people riding on a motorcycle died after a crash Saturday evening in Hammond, authorities said. 
The driver of the motorcycle was “improperly passing” at a high speed and hit a car in the intersection of W. 
Thomas Street at Chanell Shopping Center, the Hammond Police Department said in a Facebook post. 
The riders were thrown from the motorcycle and landed “out of the roadway,” police said. 
They were declared dead at the scene. 
Police do not suspect the driver was impaired. 
Hammond police haven’t identified the riders. 
The driver of the vehicle that was hit was not injured, HPD said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.1%Sam Karlin: 3.8%nola.com: 2.4%Confirmation Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 4.9%nola.com: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 3.9%nola.com: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 1.7%nola.com: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 3.6%nola.com: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 5.4%nola.com: 4.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 2.4%nola.com: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 1.2%nola.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 5.4%nola.com: 3.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 4.7%nola.com: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 9.2%nola.com: 3.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 8.8%nola.com: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 2.7%nola.com: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 1.2%nola.com: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.5%nola.com: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 1.0%nola.com: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.6%nola.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.6%nola.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 3.3%nola.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.4%nola.com: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 2.7%nola.com: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 4.2%nola.com: 2.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 1.4%nola.com: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 8.6%nola.com: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.7%nola.com: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 3.9%nola.com: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 1.2%nola.com: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.7%nola.com: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 31.9%Sam Karlin: 2.8%nola.com: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)31.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 1.0%nola.com: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 31.9%Sam Karlin: 1.6%nola.com: 2.2%Unattributed Quote31.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.7%nola.com: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.9%nola.com: 2.4%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.7%nola.com: 0.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Karlin: 1.6%nola.com: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

113 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers19%attributed speech92writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageHammond Police Department • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageHammond police • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
0%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words71% of attributed speech48% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Unattributed Quote-39.1 ptsWriter: 39.1%Hammond Police Department: 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.