3-year-old girl, 3 cops among 5 hurt in Washington Park crash 7%

By Sun-Times Wire7%

8/3/2026, 4:09:28 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Fundamental Attribution Error, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 37.1% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 200 faulty-reasoning hits from 170 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 16.9% and a BS Rank of 7% (25,517 of 27,226 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.70% of the article peer group.

Chicago police on their way to a gun call collided with a car, leaving five people hurt including a 3-year-old girl and three Chicago police officers Sunday night in Washington Park on the South Side. 
Officers in an unmarked car were responding to a call of a person with a gun around 9:30 p.m. and were going west near the 100 block of East 63rd Street when their vehicle collided with a white car going north, Chicago police said. 
A 3-year-old girl inside the car suffered a fractured tibia and was taken to Comer Children’s Hospital, where she was listed in fair condition, police said. 
A 41-year-old passenger in the sedan suffered a broken neck and was taken to Stroger Hospital in fair condition, police said. 
Car’s driver, a 32-year-old woman who declined medical attention, was cited for speeding and having no insurance. 
Three officers suffered “minor” injures and were taken to area hospitals in fair condition, officials said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Confirmation Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Availability Heuristic10.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%Sun-Times Wire: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Optimism Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 37.1%Sun-Times Wire: 8.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 6.4%Negativity Bias37.1%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 20.6%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error20.6%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 3.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 4.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 20.6%Sun-Times Wire: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice20.6%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

170 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers84%attributed speech28writer words
Selected voice

officials

100%flagged-word coverage
16 attributed words11% of attributed speech61% 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…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.