BKReader⁠60%

Man Stabbed, Cellphone Stolen in Late-Night Williamsburg Attack ⁠1%

By BK Reader Staff⁠41%

8/3/2026, 1:11:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Loss Aversion, and Recency Bias, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 20% saturation with 16 hits. Analysis detected 48 faulty-reasoning hits from 80 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 3.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠1% (26,207 of 26,447 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.10% of the article peer group.

A 30-year-old man was taken to the hospital after he was stabbed and robbed in Williamsburg late Thursday night, police say. 
The attack happened just before 9 p.m. near 54 Boerum St., between Lorimer and Leonard streets. 
Police say two men approached the victim and one of them stabbed him in the abdomen with a cutting instrument. 
His cellphone was also taken during the attack. 
More on this from News 12 Brooklyn. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 2.8%BKReader: 2.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 20.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.7%BKReader: 1.0%Anchoring Bias20.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.4%BKReader: 1.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.9%BKReader: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 6.3%BKReader: 8.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.0%BKReader: 0.8%Loss Aversion10.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.0%BKReader: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 6.4%BKReader: 6.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.1%BKReader: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.0%BK Reader Staff: 5.2%BKReader: 5.2%Negativity Bias20.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.3%BKReader: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.2%BKReader: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.9%BKReader: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 2.9%BKReader: 2.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.4%BKReader: 0.4%Recency Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.2%BKReader: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.3%BKReader: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 2.2%BKReader: 2.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.6%BKReader: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.6%BKReader: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.3%BKReader: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.6%BKReader: 3.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 8.3%BKReader: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.3%BKReader: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.6%BKReader: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.5%BKReader: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.3%BKReader: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.8%BKReader: 0.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.5%BKReader: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 2.5%BKReader: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.9%BKReader: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 2.9%BKReader: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.7%BKReader: 3.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.5%BKReader: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.3%BKReader: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

80 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.8%attributed speech73writer words
Selected voice

News 12 Brooklyn

0%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words100% of attributed speech44% 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.