Raw Story93%

Pete Buttigieg reveals 'terrifying' attack on family: 'I am beyond furious' 16%

By Nicole Charky-Chami0%

6/26/2026, 1:26:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Loss Aversion, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 25.3% saturation with 119 hits. Analysis detected 538 faulty-reasoning hits from 470 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.8% and a BS Rank of 16% (18,496 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.50% of the article peer group.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced on Friday that his family was targeted in a "terrifying" swatting incident  but this involved Child Protective Services. 
Buttigieg described what happened in a Substack post and said a CPS worker showed up at his home and asked to speak with him after someone filed a false report about him and his young children. 
He said his family was safe after the incident, adding "I am beyond furious." 
He invited them to come inside and asked what was happening. 
"They explained that there had been an allegation against me, that it concerned our four-year-year-old twins, and that a forensic interview had been arranged for the children the following day," Buttigieg wrote. 
"I could not be present at the children’s interview, nor could any family member sit in. 
Afterwards, they would come back and interview me. 
And only then would they tell me anything about the nature of the allegation." 
He revealed how this attack felt different from other political attacks he has faced in the past. 
"I was bewildered and troubled, but tried to stay calm," Buttigieg said. 
"I’m used to any number of falsehoods, attacks, and serious problems being thrown my way. 
What I didn’t understand was what could have led to this kind of visit. 
Then, the CPS worker told me something that made my stomach turn: I was not to be alone around the children, at least until the interview took place the next day." 
He asked the CPS worker to stay until his husband, Chasten, returned to their home with the children. 
They agreed the kids would stay at their grandparents' home after family dinner. 
"The twenty-four hours until they returned are among the darkest hours of my life," Buttigieg said. 
"I tried to get my head around the idea that I had been accused of something so serious that I couldn’t be alone around my own children, and had consented to have them interviewed by strangers, without my knowing where the accusation had come from or even what it contained." 
Officers found nothing to substantiate the allegation, he said, and now he and his family have to now deal with the aftermath. 
"To be clear, making a false report of this kind is a crime," he said. 
"That’s as it should be, both to protect the innocent from false accusations, and to preserve the integrity of a process designed to protect children from harm. 
I don’t know how much we can do about it, but so help me God, if there is any way to press civil or criminal charges over this, we will. 
Not just for our own sakes but to draw a line that I thought everyone already recognized: do not mess with someone’s kids." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 4.1%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 2.7%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 10.6%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Nicole Charky-Chami: 14.0%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect11.3%This article: 20.2%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.8%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion20.2%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.3%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias3.4%This article: 25.3%Nicole Charky-Chami: 20.6%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias25.3%This article: 9.6%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.7%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Nicole Charky-Chami: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.1%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.7%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 7.9%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 5.1%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.4%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.9%Nicole Charky-Chami: 5.2%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization4.9%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.9%Nicole Charky-Chami: 10.8%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion21.9%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.4%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 4.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.3%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 10.3%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.3%Nicole Charky-Chami: 5.4%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 6.2%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.6%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 2.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

470 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker64%attributed speech167writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 32 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 16 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 8 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 12 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 15 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 16 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 15 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 27 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 30 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Pete Buttigieg

59%flagged-word coverage
303 attributed words100% of attributed speech53% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Pete Buttigieg: 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.