NBC News⁠99%

Two men stabbed near Central Park ⁠94%

7/24/2026, 12:38:35 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Anchoring Bias, and Framing Effect, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 37.5% saturation with 84 hits. Analysis detected 575 faulty-reasoning hits from 224 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 90.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠94% (1,292 of 21,186 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 93.90% of the video peer group.

andĀ IĀ wouldĀ haveĀ gottenĀ stabbed.Ā 
>>Ā Tonight,Ā aĀ terrifyingĀ doubleĀ stabbingĀ onĀ NewĀ YorkĀ City'sĀ UpperĀ WestĀ Side.Ā 
AccordingĀ toĀ lawĀ enforcementĀ sources,Ā itĀ happenedĀ aroundĀ 1:30Ā p.m.Ā nearĀ CentralĀ Park,Ā justĀ feetĀ fromĀ aĀ synagogue.Ā 
WitnessesĀ sayĀ theĀ manĀ yelledĀ "AllahuĀ Akbar"Ā andĀ stabbedĀ aĀ 57-year-oldĀ AsianĀ manĀ inĀ theĀ backĀ withoutĀ warning.Ā 
TheĀ suspectĀ thenĀ walkedĀ twoĀ blocks,Ā accordingĀ toĀ lawĀ enforcementĀ sources,Ā andĀ minutesĀ laterĀ stabbedĀ aĀ 50-year-oldĀ JewishĀ manĀ inĀ theĀ chest.Ā 
InĀ thisĀ videoĀ shotĀ byĀ anĀ eyewitness,Ā youĀ seeĀ himĀ grippingĀ hisĀ chest.Ā 
TheĀ attackerĀ escapedĀ intoĀ aĀ nearbyĀ building,Ā butĀ wasĀ takenĀ intoĀ custodyĀ anĀ hourĀ later.Ā 
>>Ā I'mĀ shocked.Ā 
IĀ wouldn'tĀ haveĀ thoughtĀ IĀ thoughtĀ thisĀ wasĀ aĀ aĀ movieĀ scene,Ā youĀ know?Ā 
IĀ thoughtĀ thisĀ wasĀ completelyĀ staged.Ā 
So,Ā I'mĀ I'mĀ inĀ shock.Ā 
IĀ wouldĀ haveĀ neverĀ thoughtĀ thatĀ thisĀ wouldĀ happenĀ inĀ inĀ thisĀ neighborhood,Ā whichĀ isĀ veryĀ quiet,Ā calm,Ā fullĀ ofĀ families,Ā andĀ uhĀ >>Ā Yeah.Ā >>Ā nothingĀ intenseĀ happeningĀ here.Ā 
>>Ā VideoĀ shotĀ byĀ aĀ personĀ standingĀ nearbyĀ showsĀ firstĀ respondersĀ onĀ scene.Ā 
>>Ā CertainlyĀ unnervingĀ andĀ whenĀ it'sĀ random,Ā you'reĀ like,Ā "Geez,Ā thatĀ canĀ kindĀ ofĀ happenĀ toĀ anyone."Ā 
UmĀ yeah,Ā scary.Ā 
>>Ā TheĀ motiveĀ unclear.Ā 
PoliceĀ areĀ investigatingĀ ifĀ thisĀ wasĀ aĀ hateĀ crime.Ā 
TheyĀ sayĀ theyĀ believeĀ mentalĀ healthĀ wasĀ aĀ factor.Ā 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
20.5%
Availability Heuristic
37.5%
Representativeness Heuristic
11.2%
Hindsight Bias
9.4%
Overconfidence Bias
4%
Framing Effect
20.5%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
8.5%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
8.9%
Negativity Bias
18.8%
Self-Serving Bias
2.7%
Fundamental Attribution Error
4%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
31.7%
False Dilemma
4%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
9.4%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
1.8%
Appeal to Emotion
12.9%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
9.8%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
4%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
2.7%
Anecdotal
17.4%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
6.7%
Personal Incredulity
6.3%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
4%
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%

224 words analyzed.

Analysis

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