KOLD31%

Suspect identified in downtown Tucson mass shooting 11%

7/21/2026, 12:52:56 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Fundamental Attribution Error, and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 26.7% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 150 faulty-reasoning hits from 146 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.1% and a BS Rank of 11% (18,867 of 21,168 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.10% of the article peer group.

TUCSON, Ariz. 
(KOLD) - Police have identified the suspect in a mass shooting that occurred in downtown Tucson on July 20, 2026. 
The suspect has been identified as 34-year-old Marcus Anthony Bell. 
Bell is facing multiple charges including first-degree murder and aggravated assault. 
The shooting took place around 10:00 PM on Saturday, July 20, 2026, in the 100 block of Congress Street. 
According to the Tucson Police Department, Bell opened fire on a crowd of people outside a popular downtown bar. 
Five people were killed and ten others were injured in the attack. 
Authorities say Bell fled the scene after the shooting but was apprehended by police a few hours later at his home. 
Investigators are still working to determine a motive for the attack. 
This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%KOLD: 4.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%KOLD: 1.2%Anchoring Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%KOLD: 9.5%Framing Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%KOLD: 1.3%Pessimism Bias7.5%This article: 15.8%KOLD: 16.1%Negativity Bias15.8%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%KOLD: 2.4%Fundamental Attribution Error14.4%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 26.7%KOLD: 5.6%Appeal to Authority26.7%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.0%KOLD: 2.2%Unattributed Quote13.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.7%KOLD: 5.5%Biased Writer Voice13.7%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KOLD: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

146 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker13%attributed speech127writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageTucson Police Department • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words100% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tucson Police Department: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-15.7 ptsWriter: 15.7%Tucson 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.