OPB⁠4%

Crowd in Eugene denounces latest fatal ICE shootings ⁠64%

By Brian Bull⁠83%

7/19/2026, 3:22:54 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 43.9% saturation with 126 hits. Analysis detected 614 faulty-reasoning hits from 287 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠64% (7,471 of 20,378 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.30% of the article peer group.

Roughly 130 people turned out Saturday afternoon in downtown Eugene to denounce the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns, which saw two people killed during ICE traffic stops within a week. 
While some protesters waved Palestinian flags or pro-union signs, many more held photos of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and Joan Sebastian Durán Guerrero. 
ICE agents fatally shot both men in separate confrontations in Texas and Maine on July 7 and 14, respectively. 
Neither were the intended targets of enforcement action. 
The Party of Socialism and Liberation organized this latest protest, held at the Eugene Federal Building. 
Speakers decried the two-party system, blasting Republicans for supporting ICE raids and Democrats for not doing enough to keep immigrants and their families safe. 
Speakers urged support for PSL candidates who they say would end the violence that’s seen multiple people killed, including U.S. citizens. 
USA Today says more than 20 people have been shot during ICE operations since early 2025. 
President Trump has justified his immigration policies by falsely claiming immigrants are largely violent criminals. 
While the U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security had reportedly paused traffic stops following the deaths of Araujuo and Durán Guerrero, Trump has directed the agency to resume them. 
Legal observers kept an eye on the speakers and crowd from the Federal Building plaza. 
The hour-long event was peaceful. 
Brian Bull is a reporter with KLCC. 
This story comes to you from the Northwest News Network, a collaboration between public media organizations in Oregon and Washington. 
It is part of OPB’s broader effort to ensure that everyone in our region has access to quality journalism that informs, entertains and enriches their lives. 
To learn more, visit our journalism partnerships page. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 2.7%Associated Press: 1.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Brian Bull: 3.7%Associated Press: 2.9%Availability Heuristic5.6%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 2.4%Associated Press: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.9%Brian Bull: 11.5%Associated Press: 4.9%Framing Effect12.9%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Brian Bull: 2.4%Associated Press: 2.6%Optimism Bias7.3%This article: 5.2%Brian Bull: 1.7%Associated Press: 1.9%Pessimism Bias5.2%This article: 43.9%Brian Bull: 18.0%Associated Press: 7.0%Negativity Bias43.9%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Brian Bull: 2.9%Associated Press: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error8.7%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Brian Bull: 2.8%Associated Press: 0.9%In-Group Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Brian Bull: 3.0%Associated Press: 1.8%Halo Effect9.1%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 1.7%Associated Press: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 8.4%Brian Bull: 2.8%Associated Press: 0.1%Straw Man8.4%This article: 5.6%Brian Bull: 3.7%Associated Press: 3.8%Appeal to Authority5.6%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 2.8%Associated Press: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 7.3%Brian Bull: 2.4%Associated Press: 0.4%Slippery Slope7.3%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.6%Brian Bull: 4.6%Associated Press: 2.4%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 7.7%Associated Press: 4.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.8%Brian Bull: 6.3%Associated Press: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.8%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.3%Brian Bull: 2.4%Associated Press: 0.6%Burden of Proof7.3%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.7%Brian Bull: 2.6%Associated Press: 1.0%Anecdotal7.7%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.2%Brian Bull: 1.7%Associated Press: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.2%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.5%Brian Bull: 3.8%Associated Press: 1.7%Unattributed Quote11.5%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.4%Brian Bull: 12.0%Associated Press: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice16.4%This article: 7.3%Brian Bull: 7.3%Associated Press: 1.3%Indoctrination7.3%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 6.9%Associated Press: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Bull: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Brian Bull: 7.9%Associated Press: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.8%

287 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers29%attributed speech203writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageParty of Socialism and Liberation • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageUSA Today • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Bull • 7 words • 0.0% coverageNorthwest News Network • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words30% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+96.1 ptsWriter: 3.9%Department of Homeland Security: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.2 ptsWriter: 23.2%Department of Homeland Security: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -16.7 ptsWriter: 16.7%Department of Homeland Security: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.3 ptsWriter: 10.3%Department of Homeland Security: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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