BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 58.7% saturation with 349 hits. Analysis detected 1,270 faulty-reasoning hits from 595 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.5% and a BS Rank of 59% (8,994 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.90% of the article peer group.

CHICAGO  Block Club Chicago, a nonprofit, reader-funded newsroom focused on Chicago’s neighborhoods, was honored with a Sigma Delta Chi Award for Investigative Reporting from the Society of Professional Journalists, the organization announced last week. 
Block Club’s project  Chicago Under Siege: How Operation Midway Blitz Changed Our City   which combined investigative, archival and analysis techniques to create a permanent record of what happened in Chicago during Operation Midway Blitz  won the award recognizing excellence in journalism in the online category. 
Award judges called “Chicago Under Siege” “urgent, highly sophisticated accountability journalism that blends reporting, media criticism and data analysis with impressive confidence.” 
“The reporting is especially strong in showing the gap between official federal narratives and verifiable evidence from body-camera footage, ICE arrest records and court findings,” the judges wrote. 
“The sourcing is expansive, the visuals and data presentation are highly effective and the reporting demonstrates notable courage and rigor on an intensely polarized subject of major public consequence.” 
Scenes from a standoff at 105th and Avenue N on Chicago’s East Side between federal agents and residents on Oct. 
14, 2025. 
Credit: Matthew Kaplan for Block Club Chicago 
Building on Block Club’s on-the-ground reporting during the operation, “Chicago Under Siege” investigated 16 key events from the fall’s unprecedented federal immigration enforcement action, documenting the fear people lived in, the ways they sought to organize and resist and the heartbreak they experienced. 
Block Club reporters, led by Francia Garcia Hernandez and Madison Savedra, spoke to more than 60 people, reviewed hundreds of pages of records and court documents and watched and analyzed hours of video to bring the project to light. 
What emerged was that the federal government’s version of events, in ways big and small, did not match Chicagoans’ experiences. 
Social Media Editor Melissa Espana and reporters Francia Garcia Hernandez and Madison Savedra at the Institute for Nonprofit News Conference. 
Credit: Christine Schmidt 
“Chicago Under Siege” and our related coverage of Operation Midway Blitz has also been recognized as a finalist for the Scripps Distinguished Service to the First Amendment Award, as well as a winner of the Richard H. 
Driehaus Foundation Awards for Investigative Reporting and three Peter Lisagor Awards from the Chicago Headline Club. 
Garcia Hernandez, who covers Southwest Side immigrant neighborhoods for Block Club, was honored with the Uplifting Voices Award from Public Narrative and the Nonprofit Newcomer of the Year Award from the Institute for Nonprofit News for her Midway Blitz reporting. 
Director of Photography Colin Boyle won the LoSAH Center for Hope Community Champion Award for his work documenting the operation. 
“Chicago Under Siege” is also a finalist for two Local Independent Online News Sustainability Awards in the Public Service and Community Engagement categories. 
Block Club launched in 2018 with eight reporters and editors and has grown sustainably to a staff of 42, publishing more than 32,000 stories and growing to cover dozens of new neighborhoods in that time. 
The newsroom has been named the Local Independent Online News Publishers’ Business of the Year and Publisher of the Year, Editor & Publisher’s Best News Site, the Institute for Nonprofit News’ Community Champion of the Year and the city’s Best Newsletter six years in a row by the Chicago Reader. 
Subscribe to Block Club Chicago , an independent, 501(c)(3), journalist-run newsroom. 
Every dime we make funds reporting from Chicago’s neighborhoods. 
Already subscribe? 
Click here to gift a subscription , or you can support Block Club with a tax-deductible donation. 
Listen to the Block Club Chicago podcast: 
https://feeds.simplecast.com/qM5NtVST 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 4.3%Block Club Chicago: 1.9%Confirmation Bias19.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 2.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.4%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.7%Block Club Chicago: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic3.4%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Block Club Chicago Staff: 2.0%Block Club Chicago: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias10.3%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 2.8%Block Club Chicago: 3.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.8%Block Club Chicago: 0.5%Loss Aversion4.4%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Block Club Chicago Staff: 1.6%Block Club Chicago: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect8.4%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 1.5%Block Club Chicago: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Block Club Chicago Staff: 3.7%Block Club Chicago: 5.4%Negativity Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 1.3%Block Club Chicago: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 1.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 41.8%Block Club Chicago Staff: 11.7%Block Club Chicago: 3.4%Halo Effect41.8%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.1%Block Club Chicago Staff: 2.0%Block Club Chicago: 1.2%Recency Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 58.7%Block Club Chicago Staff: 14.7%Block Club Chicago: 2.4%Appeal to Authority58.7%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.4%Block Club Chicago Staff: 2.6%Block Club Chicago: 2.4%Hasty Generalization3.4%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 4.1%Block Club Chicago: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 4.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.4%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.7%Block Club Chicago: 0.3%Burden of Proof3.4%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.9%Block Club Chicago Staff: 1.1%Block Club Chicago: 0.1%Composition/Division5.9%This article: 7.2%Block Club Chicago Staff: 1.4%Block Club Chicago: 2.6%Anecdotal7.2%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.7%Block Club Chicago Staff: 1.9%Block Club Chicago: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.7%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.3%Block Club Chicago Staff: 4.5%Block Club Chicago: 1.3%Unattributed Quote13.3%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 1.4%Block Club Chicago: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.7%Block Club Chicago Staff: 2.2%Block Club Chicago: 1.5%Biased Writer Voice3.7%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Block Club Chicago Staff: 0.0%Block Club Chicago: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Block Club Chicago Staff: 4.3%Block Club Chicago: 3.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.9%

595 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers18%attributed speech490writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSociety of Professional Journalists • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageMatthew Kaplan • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageChristine Schmidt • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coveragePublic Narrative • 40 words • 0.0% coverageLoSAH Center for Hope • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Public Narrative

100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words38% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-16.1 ptsWriter: 16.1%Public Narrative: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%Public Narrative: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Public Narrative: 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.