WBEZ29%

Review: Slayyyter finds her best Worst self at Lollapalooza 30%

By Selena Fragassi65%

7/31/2026, 6:28:22 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Confirmation Bias, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 37.3% saturation with 225 hits. Analysis detected 899 faulty-reasoning hits from 604 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.8% and a BS Rank of 30% (19,773 of 28,109 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.30% of the article peer group.

From a Midwest Princess to Midwest Pleb, Lollapalooza has really cornered the market on catching regional hype stars in the moment, starting with Chappell Roan in 2024 and, this year, Slayyyter. 
In a repeat last-minute pivot this week, organizers smartly promoted the electro pop artist  alter ego of St. 
Louis native Catherine Grace Garner  to a main stage in anticipation of the large draw. 
A majority of the park did mosey over, proudly donning pairs of bunny ears and trucker caps, both familiar talismans in Slayyyter’s diabolical music videos as of late. 
Garner had her own pick, a bedazzled cap that spelled out Slayyyterpalooza. 
No truer words ever spoken. 
“I always wanted to play Lollapalooza, and I’m so happy we’re doing this today y’all,” she remarked about making her festival debut. 
“I want to thank you for coming to my set. 
Everything happening with me lately is so crazy, and you all make me feel like I’m such a celebrity. 
It’s like I’m actually kind of famous,” she added. 
Slayyyter performs on the Bud Light stage on Day 2 of Lollapalooza in Grant Park, Friday, July 31, 2026. 
Ashlee Rezin/Sun-Times 
The speech was a setup for one of her newer songs, “I’m Actually Kind of Famous,” but it has quickly turned prophetic. 
Slayyyter has been having a hell of a summer promoting her new album “Wor$t Girl in America.” 
It’s dominated “best of lists,” streaming services and festival circuits. 
It’s also her first album ever to pop up in top spots on Billboard charts after years of hustling to make it with a self-titled mixtape in 2019, a proper debut album “Troubled Paradise” in 2021 and 2023’s “Starf---er.” 
There was nothing amiss with any of the records  each of them cast a net of Y2k pop girlie gold; one track, “Daddy AF,” landed in the Oscar-winning “Anora.” 
But the output just wasn’t different enough from the crowded pop milieu to break out. 
With “Wor$t Girl,” Garner has found her best self. 
A concept album at heart, it’s a scrapbook of small-town blues set to an apocalyptic soundtrack of dark noise. 
And in interpreting it for the stage, Slayyyter completely slayed. 
Fans dance and cheer as Slayyyter performs on the Bud Light stage on Day 2 of Lollapalooza in Grant Park, Friday, July 31, 2026. 
Garner rose to the occasion visually with a backdrop that featured a dilapidated house, blood-smeared T-shirts hung on clothing lines and crosses leaned against the walls. 
In any other setting, the stage design could have been mistaken for a “House of 1000 Corpses” terror. 
She, too, came perfectly coiffed and dressed in a microflannel, heeled Wellies boots and hot shorts adorned with dangling fishing bait. 
Her band members matched the trashy aesthetic. 
Having the live band was an absolute game changer: The chugging bass lines, brutal drumbeats and furious guitar tones turned club hits into an industrial metal breakdown on songs like “Old Technology” and “Crank.” 
The crowd went absolutely berserk for the latter, slam dancing and singing along to lyrics about keeping fingers on triggers. 
Garner herself was headbanging, thrashing and growling on some tracks like she’d gone feral in the woods. 
By the end, she slowed things down when live debuting “Brand New Chanel$” that dropped yesterday. 
Whereas the rest of her material felt like nightmare fuel, this new one was all sprinkles and rainbows. 
It’s part of an upcoming album companion project, and it was effective. 
Garner has always been a pro at showing multiple sides. 
But, pray that she’ll keep doing her Worst, too. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.3%Selena Fragassi: 2.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Confirmation Bias9.3%This article: 3.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias3.0%This article: 10.6%Selena Fragassi: 3.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic10.6%This article: 8.3%Selena Fragassi: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic8.3%This article: 3.6%Selena Fragassi: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Hindsight Bias3.6%This article: 8.1%Selena Fragassi: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias8.1%This article: 3.0%Selena Fragassi: 3.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.4%Framing Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.8%Selena Fragassi: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Optimism Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Selena Fragassi: 4.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Negativity Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 2.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Selena Fragassi: 8.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Halo Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Selena Fragassi: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Recency Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 2.5%Selena Fragassi: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.8%Selena Fragassi: 5.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Hasty Generalization6.8%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.3%Selena Fragassi: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Bandwagon3.3%This article: 3.0%Selena Fragassi: 3.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion3.0%This article: 3.6%Selena Fragassi: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 3.6%Selena Fragassi: 2.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.6%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.0%Selena Fragassi: 4.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.0%Anecdotal5.0%This article: 3.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman3.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Selena Fragassi: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 3.6%Selena Fragassi: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 37.3%Selena Fragassi: 17.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice37.3%This article: 1.5%Selena Fragassi: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Indoctrination1.5%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

604 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.9%attributed speech544writer words
68%flagged-word coverage
60 attributed words100% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-41.4 ptsWriter: 41.4%Catherine Grace Garner: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+36.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Catherine Grace Garner: 36.7%36.7%Quote-first Misdirection-4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Catherine Grace Garner: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.7 ptsWriter: 1.7%Catherine Grace Garner: 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.