ICE to stop reporting deaths of newly released detainees, internal memo says ⁠36%

By Douglas MacMillan⁠0%

6/4/2026, 9:09:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 64.6% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 269 faulty-reasoning hits from 79 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43% and a BS Rank of ⁠36% (14,081 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.30% of the article peer group.

As the number of immigrants dying in government custody rises, U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is shrinking the scope of which deaths it will be required to report. 
In a memo sent to agency employees Thursday and reviewed by The Washington Post, acting director David Venturella said ICE is eliminating its requirement to report deaths that occur within 30 days of people being released from its custody. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Douglas MacMillan: 3.5%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic13.9%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 21.5%Douglas MacMillan: 16.1%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect21.5%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 35.4%Douglas MacMillan: 16.1%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias35.4%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 49.4%Douglas MacMillan: 12.3%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias49.4%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 64.6%Douglas MacMillan: 16.1%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority64.6%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.5%Douglas MacMillan: 5.4%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization21.5%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 5.4%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.9%Douglas MacMillan: 3.5%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.9%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 49.4%Douglas MacMillan: 12.3%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote49.4%This article: 49.4%Douglas MacMillan: 12.3%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection49.4%This article: 21.5%Douglas MacMillan: 10.8%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice21.5%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 5.4%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas MacMillan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

79 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker49%attributed speech40writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Venturella • 39 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Venturella

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%David Venturella: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%David Venturella: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-42.5 ptsWriter: 42.5%David Venturella: 0.0%0.0%

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.