WDIV⁠17%

Incident triggers police investigation in Southfield on Sunday Morning ⁠32%

By Bryan Schuerman⁠12% Sara Schulz⁠7%

8/9/2026, 5:36:16 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation) and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 22.5% saturation with 18 hits. Analysis detected 45 faulty-reasoning hits from 80 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠32% (20,906 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.40% of the article peer group.

SOUTHFIELD, MI – We’re following some breaking news on Sunday morning, coming out of Southfield in Oakland County. 
Our crew arrived at an active police investigation scene on 9 Mile Road in Southfield. 
Video into our newsroom shows that there is crime scene tape out, and officers investigating. 
We are working to figure out what happened at this scene. 
Stay with WDIV Local 4 News and ClickOnDetroit.com for the latest information. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 2.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 1.5%WDIV: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 1.8%WDIV: 1.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.6%WDIV: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 2.6%WDIV: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 1.5%WDIV: 2.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 1.2%WDIV: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 1.4%WDIV: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 5.2%WDIV: 4.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 1.1%WDIV: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 2.2%WDIV: 0.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 1.3%WDIV: 3.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.6%WDIV: 1.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 1.0%WDIV: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 1.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.8%Bryan Schuerman: 1.4%WDIV: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.8%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 1.1%WDIV: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 22.5%Bryan Schuerman: 2.0%WDIV: 1.4%Biased Writer Voice22.5%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.3%WDIV: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Bryan Schuerman: 0.0%WDIV: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.0%

80 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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