The quiet infrastructure of control 88%

By Shawn Mulcahy37%

8/5/2026, 6:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.7% saturation with 124 hits. Analysis detected 1,095 faulty-reasoning hits from 417 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.7% and a BS Rank of 88% (3,770 of 30,209 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.50% of the article peer group.

Right now, as you read this, someone is watching you. 
From AI-powered cameras and automated license plate readers to drones and GPS monitors, police at every level have access to a truly impressive arsenal of tools collecting information, whether you’re on the bus, at a coffee shop, or within the confines of your own home. 
Beyond law enforcement, companies like Amazon and Meta have grown into multibillion-dollar enterprises thanks in no small part to the exploitation of personal data we’ve offered up—willingly or otherwise. 
That probably isn’t much of a surprise. 
For many years, the Reader’s pages have chronicled the rise of mass surveillance and, with it, the erosion of any expectation of privacy. 
When we first tossed around the idea for an issue devoted to surveillance, we envisioned more of the same: reporting on secretive police tools or the failed promises of the latest “solution” to gun violence. 
In the months since, our world has continued down a particularly dark path—a livestreamed genocide, a fascist occupation, a vociferous crackdown on dissent. 
What resulted instead was a collection of stories exploring the more mundane, but no less insidious, ways a culture of surveillance has enabled the horrors unfolding around us. 
Katie Prout shares the perspective of a formerly unhoused neighbor living in Chicago’s public parks, spaces where residents are expected to relinquish their privacy—and often their agency—amid constant scrutiny from police, city workers, and fellow community members. 
Kerry Cardoza reports on continued turmoil at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, where the administration is disciplining faculty over pro-Palestinian speech while sidestepping its own due-process and academic-freedom policies. 
Shira Friedman-Parks highlights the promise of underground publishing as a way to counter state censorship, even as the federal government criminalizes zinemakers, as it did recently in Alvarado, Texas. 
Leor Galil traces how algorithm-driven social media sites and streaming services have changed who gets picked to play shows and where they get booked. 
And my own story uncovers an effort to reframe part of the notoriously grim Cook County jail as a trauma-informed community space. 
The rise of mass surveillance is intrinsically linked to the rise of fascism, the silencing of dissent, and the criminalization of public spaces. 
Without the former, it would be much harder for the government to do the latter. 
By focusing on the less visible aspects of surveillance culture, we hope to foster a deeper understanding of our current predicament—and how you can challenge it. 
—Shawn Mulcahy, news editor 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.2%Shawn Mulcahy: 3.1%Chicago Reader: 2.2%Confirmation Bias18.2%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Shawn Mulcahy: 1.0%Chicago Reader: 2.3%Availability Heuristic11.3%This article: 10.8%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.3%Chicago Reader: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.2%Chicago Reader: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Shawn Mulcahy: 5.8%Chicago Reader: 3.3%Framing Effect7.9%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.1%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.4%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.2%Chicago Reader: 0.5%Status Quo Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.4%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.2%Shawn Mulcahy: 1.3%Chicago Reader: 1.7%Optimism Bias6.2%This article: 13.4%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.7%Chicago Reader: 1.1%Pessimism Bias13.4%This article: 29.7%Shawn Mulcahy: 10.5%Chicago Reader: 4.9%Negativity Bias29.7%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.3%Chicago Reader: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.7%Chicago Reader: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.2%Chicago Reader: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.1%Chicago Reader: 3.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.5%Chicago Reader: 0.7%Recency Bias5.5%This article: 5.5%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.1%Chicago Reader: 0.4%Primacy Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.5%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 5.5%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.6%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Straw Man5.5%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 3.6%Chicago Reader: 1.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.5%Shawn Mulcahy: 1.3%Chicago Reader: 1.1%False Dilemma5.5%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.1%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.6%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.2%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Circular Reasoning3.6%This article: 18.5%Shawn Mulcahy: 3.2%Chicago Reader: 3.5%Hasty Generalization18.5%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.1%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.1%Shawn Mulcahy: 3.5%Chicago Reader: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion21.1%This article: 1.7%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.6%Chicago Reader: 0.4%Begging the Question1.7%This article: 12.5%Shawn Mulcahy: 1.6%Chicago Reader: 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.5%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.1%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.4%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.3%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.1%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 21.1%Shawn Mulcahy: 1.3%Chicago Reader: 2.4%Anecdotal21.1%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.1%Chicago Reader: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.8%Chicago Reader: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.6%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.2%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.7%Chicago Reader: 0.8%Unattributed Quote13.2%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 29.5%Shawn Mulcahy: 4.3%Chicago Reader: 9.7%Biased Writer Voice29.5%This article: 13.4%Shawn Mulcahy: 1.4%Chicago Reader: 1.4%Indoctrination13.4%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 2.1%Chicago Reader: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Mulcahy: 2.1%Chicago Reader: 2.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

417 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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