Use-of-Force Expert on What’s Going Wrong in ICE Enforcement Operations ⁠100%

By Cascade PBS Staff⁠52%

7/21/2026, 12:15:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 84.5% saturation with 49 hits. Analysis detected 310 faulty-reasoning hits from 58 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠100% (58 of 20,518 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 99.70% of the article peer group.

In the last few weeks, three people have died during encounters with ICE agents, sparking public outrage and raising questions about the tactics employed. 
Law professor Seth Stoughton is a former police officer. 
He speaks to Michel Martin about the rise in violence and how to stop it. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.4%Cascade PBS: 3.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.0%Cascade PBS: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 41.4%Cascade PBS Staff: 4.1%Cascade PBS: 6.4%Availability Heuristic41.4%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.8%Cascade PBS: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 43.1%Cascade PBS Staff: 15.5%Cascade PBS: 16.7%Framing Effect43.1%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.8%Cascade PBS: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 41.4%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.6%Cascade PBS: 3.1%Pessimism Bias41.4%This article: 84.5%Cascade PBS Staff: 15.2%Cascade PBS: 20.2%Negativity Bias84.5%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.5%Cascade PBS: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Cascade PBS Staff: 9.6%Cascade PBS: 7.5%Halo Effect15.5%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 41.4%Cascade PBS Staff: 6.7%Cascade PBS: 5.1%Recency Bias41.4%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 32.8%Cascade PBS Staff: 9.1%Cascade PBS: 8.7%Appeal to Authority32.8%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.4%Cascade PBS: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 41.4%Cascade PBS Staff: 5.3%Cascade PBS: 6.4%Hasty Generalization41.4%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 41.4%Cascade PBS Staff: 3.5%Cascade PBS: 2.8%Appeal to Emotion41.4%This article: 25.9%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.4%Cascade PBS: 1.0%Begging the Question25.9%This article: 41.4%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.8%Cascade PBS: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)41.4%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.4%Cascade PBS: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 43.1%Cascade PBS Staff: 5.9%Cascade PBS: 9.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)43.1%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 3.0%Cascade PBS: 3.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.8%Cascade PBS: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 41.4%Cascade PBS Staff: 11.8%Cascade PBS: 10.0%Biased Writer Voice41.4%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 4.1%Cascade PBS: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.1%Cascade PBS: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

58 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker41%attributed speech34writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageSeth Stoughton • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSeth Stoughton • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Seth Stoughton

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice-70.6 ptsWriter: 70.6%Seth Stoughton: 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.