19-year-old charged 6 months after deadly crash in Clermont County 9%

By Mary LeBus5%

7/24/2026, 8:01:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Biased Writer Voice, with Fundamental Attribution Error as the most egregious example at 16.9% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 185 faulty-reasoning hits from 207 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.8% and a BS Rank of 9% (19,975 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.30% of the article peer group.

A 19-year-old is facing charges after he allegedly ran a stop sign in Clermont County, resulting in a fatal crash. 
Sean McDonald, of Blanchester, was indicted July 23 in connection to the death of 74-year-old Dennis Skeene and seriously injuring a 70-year-old woman, according to an Ohio crash report. 
Six months after the deadly crash, a Clermont County Grand Jury indicted McDonald on one count each of aggravated vehicular homicide, vehicular homicide, vehicular manslaughter and vehicular assault, according to court documents. 
It happened on state Route 232 at the intersection of Swings Corner Point Isabel Road in Tate Township on Jan. 
24. 
A crash report says the woman was driving westbound on the highway with Skeene as her passenger. 
McDonald was traveling south on Swings Corner Point Isabel Road before he ran a stop sign at the intersection and hit the other vehicle on the passenger side, where Skeene was sitting, the report says. 
The victims’ vehicle traveled off the road while McDonald’s hit a tree. 
Skeene and the woman both sustained serious injuries and were transported to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. 
Skeene later died from his injuries. 
Enquirer media partner Fox19 provided this report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.5%Mary LeBus: 5.2%The Enquirer: 2.8%Confirmation Bias15.5%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 3.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 8.7%Mary LeBus: 2.9%The Enquirer: 1.0%Loss Aversion8.7%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Mary LeBus: 3.9%The Enquirer: 7.7%Negativity Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 16.9%Mary LeBus: 5.6%The Enquirer: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error16.9%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 4.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.4%Mary LeBus: 1.1%The Enquirer: 2.9%Appeal to Authority3.4%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.9%Mary LeBus: 1.0%The Enquirer: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion2.9%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.5%Mary LeBus: 5.2%The Enquirer: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.5%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.5%Mary LeBus: 0.2%The Enquirer: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.5%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.4%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 14.5%Mary LeBus: 4.8%The Enquirer: 2.1%Biased Writer Voice14.5%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary LeBus: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

207 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.4%attributed speech200writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageFox19 • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Fox19

100%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words100% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-15.0 ptsWriter: 15.0%Fox19: 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.