Man arrested after Covington bar shooting in May, police say ⁠6%

By Matthew Cupelli⁠25%

7/24/2026, 2:58:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.8% saturation with 59 hits. Analysis detected 250 faulty-reasoning hits from 198 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠6% (20,607 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.20% of the article peer group.

Franklin Smith, 44, was hiding in a Sharonville hotel room when he was arrested on July 24, according to a Covington police news release. 
He is charged with felony assault and possessing a handgun as a convicted felon in connection with a May 17 shooting at the Hat Tricks Sports Bar that left another man in critical condition, police stated. 
The assault charge carries the same level and penalty as attempted murder, according to Covington police spokesperson Justin Bradbury. 
*This story has been updated after Covington police clarified Smith's charges. 
* 
The man injured in the shooting was a security guard who worked at the bar for nearly a decade, according to Enquirer media partner Fox19. 
He was shot multiple times, according to a previous news release. 
The city of Covington later revoked the Hat Tricks Sports Bar's liquor license on May 28, citing the shooting. 
City officials determined the establishment violated its liquor license conditions and had become "associated with nuisance activity," according to a city news release. 
Smith is being held at the Hamilton County Justice Center. 
He is awaiting extradition to Kenton County, police said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.2%Matthew Cupelli: 4.7%The Enquirer: 2.8%Confirmation Bias18.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 2.9%The Enquirer: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 4.2%The Enquirer: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.8%The Enquirer: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.6%The Enquirer: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Matthew Cupelli: 4.3%The Enquirer: 3.3%Framing Effect11.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.7%The Enquirer: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.6%The Enquirer: 1.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.2%The Enquirer: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.2%The Enquirer: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 29.8%Matthew Cupelli: 8.3%The Enquirer: 7.7%Negativity Bias29.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 2.1%The Enquirer: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.8%The Enquirer: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 3.4%The Enquirer: 4.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.6%The Enquirer: 0.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Matthew Cupelli: 0.4%The Enquirer: 0.2%Primacy Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.6%Matthew Cupelli: 2.0%The Enquirer: 2.9%Appeal to Authority9.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 3.5%The Enquirer: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 6.5%The Enquirer: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.6%Matthew Cupelli: 2.3%The Enquirer: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.7%The Enquirer: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 2.9%The Enquirer: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.6%Matthew Cupelli: 1.4%The Enquirer: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.7%The Enquirer: 0.4%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.6%Matthew Cupelli: 2.5%The Enquirer: 1.3%Unattributed Quote12.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.6%The Enquirer: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 18.2%Matthew Cupelli: 6.0%The Enquirer: 2.1%Biased Writer Voice18.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 2.7%The Enquirer: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Cupelli: 3.2%The Enquirer: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

198 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers22%attributed speech154writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageJustin Bradbury • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageFox19 • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Fox19

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words57% of attributed speech57% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Fox19: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.4 ptsWriter: 23.4%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.