How ICE turned its violent arrest of a US citizen into content – Stateside with Kai and Carter ⁠46%

By Hosted by Carter Sherman⁠0% Sam Levin⁠0% produced by Tiara Chiaramonte⁠0% Suzanne Gaber⁠0% engineered by Ivan Kuraev⁠0% executive producer Rachel Humphreys⁠0%

5/15/2026, 8:50:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 85.7% saturation with 90 hits. Analysis detected 385 faulty-reasoning hits from 105 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠46% (11,948 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.60% of the article peer group.

In June 2025, Christian Cerna went to a protest in his neighborhood against ICE raids and allegedly punched a border patrol agent. 
He later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault, but denies that he ever hit the officer. 
Days after the protest, Christian was violently arrested in front of his family by ICE officers, who filmed the whole operation and later posted it to social media. 
Christian tells Carter Sherman how the experience took a "heavy toll" on him and Sam Levin reveals the reporting behind the story 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.3%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 3.6%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias14.3%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 43.8%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 32.9%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect43.8%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 85.7%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 43.3%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias85.7%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.3%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 3.6%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization14.3%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 38.1%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 14.8%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion38.1%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 26.7%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 6.7%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)26.7%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 21.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 5.2%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal21.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 79.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 19.8%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)79.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 43.8%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 26.2%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice43.8%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 11.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hosted by Carter Sherman: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

105 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker35%attributed speech68writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageChristian Cerna • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageChristian Cerna • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Christian Cerna

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice-67.6 ptsWriter: 67.6%Christian Cerna: 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.