amny.com43%

Midtown knife attack: Three injured, one man arrested in bloody end to Times Square fight 18%

By Dean Moses44%

7/22/2026, 5:35:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Fundamental Attribution Error, Framing Effect, and Anchoring Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 14.7% saturation with 34 hits. Analysis detected 181 faulty-reasoning hits from 232 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.2% and a BS Rank of 18% (18,032 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.40% of the article peer group.

Three people were injured late on Tuesday night in a bloody knife attack near Times Square , police reported. 
Sources said a man has been charged for the violent stabbing and slashing that occurred just before 11:40 p.m. on July 21 outside of an Applebee’s restaurant at the corner of West 50th Street and Broadway. 
Officers from the Midtown North Precinct received a 911 call reporting that a dispute had turned violent. 
Police learned that one of the individuals involved in the argument, identified as 24-year-old Preshan Bennett, allegedly went on the attack, using a sharp object to slice and stab his foes. 
Upon arriving at the scene, the officers found a 24-year-old man with a stab wound to the torso and a slash wound to the left leg, a 26-year-old man with slash wounds to his hands and left leg, and an unknown man with slash wounds to his leg. 
All three victims were rushed to Bellevue Hospital, where they were treated for their injuries. 
They are each expected to survive. 
Meanwhile, police took Bennett into custody near the scene. 
Following questioning, he was charged with assault, menacing, and criminal possession of a weapon. 
Through July 19, the Midtown North Precinct reported a 4.2% increase in felony assaults, from 191 last year to 199 this year. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 5.1%amNewYork: 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Dean Moses: 0.6%amNewYork: 1.3%Anchoring Bias9.5%This article: 9.5%Dean Moses: 4.1%amNewYork: 3.8%Availability Heuristic9.5%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.6%amNewYork: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.4%amNewYork: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.5%Dean Moses: 6.8%amNewYork: 5.5%Framing Effect12.5%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.2%amNewYork: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Dean Moses: 2.5%amNewYork: 3.7%Optimism Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.2%amNewYork: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Dean Moses: 8.6%amNewYork: 7.0%Negativity Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 2.9%amNewYork: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Dean Moses: 4.1%amNewYork: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error13.4%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.1%amNewYork: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 2.5%amNewYork: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.3%amNewYork: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 6.7%amNewYork: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 5.0%amNewYork: 3.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.3%amNewYork: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 7.0%amNewYork: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.9%amNewYork: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 2.1%amNewYork: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.4%amNewYork: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 9.5%Dean Moses: 0.3%amNewYork: 0.3%Composition/Division9.5%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.8%amNewYork: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.8%amNewYork: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 2.5%amNewYork: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 2.8%amNewYork: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.5%Dean Moses: 5.5%amNewYork: 4.2%Biased Writer Voice6.5%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.2%amNewYork: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.5%amNewYork: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

232 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.5%attributed speech210writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMidtown North Precinct • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words100% of attributed speech40% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.1 ptsWriter: 7.1%Midtown North Precinct: 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.