Lummi Nation accuses Whidbey Telecom of digging up, ignoring remains at Point Roberts ⁠85%

By Stephen Howie⁠0%

4/28/2026, 10:31:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.6% saturation with 139 hits. Analysis detected 701 faulty-reasoning hits from 469 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠85% (3,211 of 20,368 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.20% of the article peer group.

The Lummi Nation filed a lawsuit Monday that accuses Whidbey Telecom of repeatedly digging up and disturbing Native burial grounds at Point Roberts. 
"This wasn't an accident. 
It was a series of decisions," said Greg Werkheiser of Cultural Heritage Partners, who is representing the tribe. 
The lawsuit names the Langley-based telecom company, as well as Whatcom County, which permitted three broadband-expansion projects, and the U.S. departments of agriculture and commerce, which funded them. 
Point Roberts has been a cultural location for the Lummi Nation for more than 5,000 years, according to the lawsuit. 
"The remains of countless ancestors were carefully laid to rest in its soil," the lawsuit states. 
The complaint cites three separate Whidbey Telecom projects that have impacted ancestral burial grounds dating back to 2020 and continued through 2025. 
The lawsuit alleged the company: 
Did not consult with the tribe. 
Trenched through burial grounds multiple times. 
Did not stop work after encountering evidence of human remains. 
Resumed construction after stop-work obligations were triggered. 
Left human remains and funerary objects in dirt piles exposed to the weather for years. 
Lost human remains. 
Withheld information about the extent of the damage. 
Denied access to tribal officials hoping to recover and rebury remains and artifacts. 
In one instance, the lawsuit said Whidbey Telecom workers continued digging a 1,000-foot-long, 3-foot-deep trench after repeatedly encountering human remains. 
<strong><em>RELATED</em>: <a href="https://www.kuow.org/stories/bringing-their-ancestors-home-the-long-process-of-recovering-tribal-remains" target="_blank">Bringing ancestors home — the long process of recovering tribal remains</a></strong> 
“At every critical moment—when consultation was required, when human remains were uncovered, when work should have stopped—the defendants chose to proceed,” Werkheiser said. 
The lawsuit details federal, state, and local laws it says were broken, and asks for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. 
The suit also asks for ongoing Whidbey Telecom projects on Point Roberts to stop, so the full extent of the impact to Native burial grounds can be assessed. 
“These protections are not optional,” Lena Tso, tribal historic preservation officer for the Lummi Nation said in a press release announcing the suit. 
“They are the minimum required to ensure that development does not come at the cost of erasing a people’s history. 
Here, those safeguards were treated as obstacles instead of obligations.” 
KUOW reached out to both Whatcom County and Whidbey Telecom. 
Whatcom County Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler said via email, "The County has no comment at this time." 
Whidbey Telecom did not respond to an initial interview request. 
Tribal Chair Anthony Hillaire said the pattern of mistakes at multiple levels shows a lack of respect toward the Lummi Nation and his ancestors. 
"What happened here is not just a legal failure, it is a human one," he said. 
"The law requires respect before, during, and after any disturbance. 
That respect was missing at every stage." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.4%Stephen Howie: 2.7%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 1.0%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Stephen Howie: 4.7%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic8.5%This article: 4.7%Stephen Howie: 1.2%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic4.7%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.5%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Stephen Howie: 1.7%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias3.8%This article: 12.6%Stephen Howie: 8.2%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect12.6%This article: 4.3%Stephen Howie: 1.1%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion4.3%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 1.0%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 2.9%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 1.9%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 29.6%Stephen Howie: 7.5%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias29.6%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 1.6%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Stephen Howie: 1.4%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error7.2%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Stephen Howie: 1.4%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.4%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 1.8%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.3%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.8%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Stephen Howie: 0.1%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.1%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Stephen Howie: 0.8%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem2.1%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.6%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.0%Stephen Howie: 6.2%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority7.0%This article: 4.3%Stephen Howie: 1.5%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma4.3%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 1.3%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 4.8%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.3%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 1.2%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.3%Stephen Howie: 8.8%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion14.3%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.6%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 1.0%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.3%Stephen Howie: 0.6%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof4.3%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 3.7%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%Stephen Howie: 1.3%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.2%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.4%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.9%Stephen Howie: 0.9%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote4.9%This article: 0.9%Stephen Howie: 1.5%KUOW: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.9%This article: 6.2%Stephen Howie: 2.3%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice6.2%This article: 10.9%Stephen Howie: 0.5%KUOW: 1.5%Indoctrination10.9%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 2.3%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Howie: 0.1%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

469 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers36%attributed speech301writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageGreg Werkheiser • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageGreg Werkheiser • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageLena Tso • 23 words • 100.0% coverageLena Tso • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLena Tso • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageKayla Schott-Bresler • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAnthony Hillaire • 24 words • 0.0% coverageAnthony Hillaire • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAnthony Hillaire • 10 words • 100.0% coverageAnthony Hillaire • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lena Tso

100%flagged-word coverage
53 attributed words32% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Indoctrination+43.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lena Tso: 43.4%43.4%Biased Writer Voice-9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%Lena Tso: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.3 ptsWriter: 1.3%Lena Tso: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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