Hackers hit University of Missouri system and 9,000 other Canvas schools 10%

By Stan Jastrzebski0%

5/7/2026, 9:15:57 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Biased Writer Voice, and Negativity Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 30.1% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 719 faulty-reasoning hits from 332 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26.7% and a BS Rank of 10% (19,808 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 90.50% of the article peer group.

University of Missouri system users who logged on to the Canvas educational data management system Thursday afternoon were greeted with an ominous message saying the platform had been hacked. 
The breach is attributed to a hacker group calling itself ShinyHunters, which has claimed responsibility for dozens of similar data thefts since 2019, including breaching Microsoft, AT&T, Louis Vuitton and other educational software, such as Power School. 
"Access to Canvas for the University is closed. 
We did that to make sure that things remained as safe as we can make them," said UM spokesman Christopher Ave. 
"We are going to be working with Canvas to get a solution as quickly as we possibly can." 
The message appearing to UM system Canvas users attempted to extort the school into paying a ransom, though a specific dollar amount was not listed. 
The message gives Mizzou until May 12 to comply, saying that if the deadline is not met, the information of Canvas users will be distributed online. 
Ave said MU officials has been informed earlier by the week that Canvas parent company Instructure has been the target of a cyberattack, but it wasn't until Thursday that the UM system campuses in Columbia, Kansas City, St. 
Louis and Missouri S&T in Rolla were affected. 
Ave said school officials don't know how many individuals' records might be compromised. 
"We were waiting to get clarity on that or seeking clarity on that when today's incident occurred," he said. 
Mizzou is far from the only university to be affected. 
Canvas is believed to be used by more than 40% of all U.S. universities. 
News reports say schools such as Duke, Rutgers and the University of Pennsylvania are among those that have also had their Canvas sites hacked. 
As of 3:40 p.m. 
Central Time, the message had changed to say Canvas was "undergoing scheduled maintenance." 
This is a developing story and will be updated. 
Copyright 2026 KBIA 91.3 FM 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Stan Jastrzebski: 2.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias3.9%This article: 3.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 11.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic3.0%This article: 4.2%Stan Jastrzebski: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic4.2%This article: 11.4%Stan Jastrzebski: 2.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias11.4%This article: 15.1%Stan Jastrzebski: 3.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias15.1%This article: 9.6%Stan Jastrzebski: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect9.6%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 2.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Stan Jastrzebski: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 2.7%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Stan Jastrzebski: 4.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias16.6%This article: 19.6%Stan Jastrzebski: 11.7%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 1.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.2%Stan Jastrzebski: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority7.2%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.5%Stan Jastrzebski: 8.2%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization14.5%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.2%Stan Jastrzebski: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon7.2%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.4%Stan Jastrzebski: 2.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.4%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 28.9%Stan Jastrzebski: 8.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)28.9%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 30.1%Stan Jastrzebski: 7.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote30.1%This article: 2.4%Stan Jastrzebski: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 20.2%Stan Jastrzebski: 7.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice20.2%This article: 5.4%Stan Jastrzebski: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination5.4%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Jastrzebski: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

332 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers37%attributed speech210writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageChristopher Ave • 8 words • 100.0% coverageChristopher Ave • 21 words • 100.0% coverageChristopher Ave • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageChristopher Ave • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageChristopher Ave • 13 words • 0.0% coverageChristopher Ave • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageKBIA 91.3 FM • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Christopher Ave

100%flagged-word coverage
117 attributed words96% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote+4.3 ptsWriter: 29.0%Christopher Ave: 33.3%33.3%Biased Writer Voice+18.7 ptsWriter: 13.8%Christopher Ave: 32.5%32.5%Indoctrination+15.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Christopher Ave: 15.4%15.4%Quote-first Misdirection+6.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Christopher Ave: 6.8%6.8%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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