NBC News99%

Alarming video of cross burning in Chicago 96%

6/10/2026, 5:02:29 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Availability Heuristic, and Burden of Proof, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 66.7% saturation with 160 hits. Analysis detected 897 faulty-reasoning hits from 240 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 92.4% and a BS Rank of 96% (1,071 of 21,887 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 95.10% of the video peer group.

Wa! This chilling scene caught on camera in downtown Chicago. 
>> You're kidding me. 
>> You see what clearly looks like a cross engulfed in flames. 
>> In 2026, we are burning crosses. 
>> Chicago police tonight releasing this image of a person they say was seen fleeing the scene as the FBI confirms it's investigating. 
A burning cross is a hate symbol historically used by groups like the KKK and has been prosecuted as a federal hate crime. 
On the street, you see some obvious scarring. 
Some leaves do appear to be burned as well. 
Police saying no injuries were reported, but they are investigating the motive and circumstances around this incident. 
The mayor's office saying hate has no place in our city. 
>> We're just like dumbfounded. 
>> The scene shocking Chicago resident Lena Carlton, who was driving through the city's Grant Park, known for its big festivals in former President Obama's 2008 victory speech. This was something you I've only heard about in school and seen in black and white videos. 
>> Residents walking through the area today shaken, but like looking at that, what do you see? 
>> I don't know. It just makes me sad and kind of angry at the same time. 
>> And now, one Southside church offering a $10,000 reward, hoping to track down the person responsible for this unsettling scene. 
Shaquille Brewster, NBC News, 
Confirmation Bias
14.6%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
48.3%
Representativeness Heuristic
21.7%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
3.8%
Framing Effect
14.6%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
1.7%
Negativity Bias
66.7%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
7.1%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
4.6%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
18.8%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
16.7%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
2.9%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
63.8%
Begging the Question
4.6%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
25.4%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
18.8%
No True Scotsman
9.6%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
21.7%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
8.8%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

240 words analyzed.

Analysis

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