San Francisco Tenderloin fire at 6-story aparment building 7%

By KTVU Staff12%

7/19/2026, 7:25:57 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Halo Effect, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 42.6% saturation with 87 hits. Analysis detected 138 faulty-reasoning hits from 204 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.5% and a BS Rank of 7% (20,548 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.90% of the article peer group.

Firefighters are working to extinguish a two-alarm fire at a six-story Tenderloin apartment building just after noon Sunday in San Francisco. 
The San Francisco Fire Department posted about the fire at 12:09 p.m. to say residents of the building at the 400 block of Jones Street at Ellis Street have been evacuated. 
SF Fire said they were working to extinguish the fire that is on multiple floors. 
The fire spread through the building's light well. 
Three people suffering from smoke inhalation were being evaluated. 
One of them was transported to a local hospital. 
The Red Cross is assisting residents who were displaced. 
Fire officials said the police department, PG&E, and the water department are also at the scene. 
Video shared by the department showed firefighters at the scene entering the building with tools as black smoke billowed from 424 Jones Street's front gate. 
Another video shows firefighters' ladders extended onto the building. 
The San Francisco Department of Emergency Management alerted residents to avoid the area due to the fire and because emergency crews were working the scene. 
There is no word yet on the cause of this fire. 
It is unclear how many residents are displaced. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 2.1%KTVU: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.8%KTVU: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 6.4%KTVU: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.5%KTVU: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 3.6%KTVU: 6.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.4%KTVU: 6.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.5%KTVU: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 3.5%KTVU: 5.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%KTVU Staff: 0.9%KTVU: 3.8%Halo Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 42.6%KTVU Staff: 6.8%KTVU: 4.0%Appeal to Authority42.6%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 2.2%KTVU: 2.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 7.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 2.1%KTVU: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.7%KTVU Staff: 3.7%KTVU: 3.4%Anecdotal16.7%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.9%KTVU Staff: 4.4%KTVU: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.4%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 4.7%KTVU: 2.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.5%KTVU: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 2.0%KTVU: 3.4%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.7%KTVU: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

204 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers39%attributed speech124writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSan Francisco Fire Department • 31 words • 0.0% coverageSF Fire • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageRed Cross • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSan Francisco Department of Emergency Management • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words39% of attributed speech47% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.