EXPOSED: NYC bodegas let customers buy drugs, liquor with EBT cards: OMG 66%

By Hannah Nightingale62%

7/30/2026, 12:48:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Begging the Question, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 28.1% saturation with 116 hits. Analysis detected 999 faulty-reasoning hits from 413 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.9% and a BS Rank of 66% (9,357 of 26,881 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.20% of the article peer group.

A new undercover report from O’Keefe Media Group has revealed how bodegas in New York City are allowing customers to use EBT cards to purchase drugs and alcohol against both federal and state law. 
The group went to numerous stores in the city, attempting to use an EBT card to purchase things like kratom, a sedative derived from trees with opioid-like properties, and were able to do so. 
At one store, a journalist with OMG attempted to purchase kratom, with the store clerk running the EBT card as “EBT cash” instead of “EBT food.” 
Under federal law, EBT and SNAP benefits are only allowed to be used for eligible foods, with New York law stating the same. 
At other stores across the city, similar experiences took place, with store owners allowing them to use EBT cards to pay for the kratom. 
James O’Keefe noted that they had been using EBT cards that don’t work. 
“The objective was merely to show that these smoke shop clerks are willing to make the attempt to sell these products using government-funded benefits. 
Even the attempt to do this is also a crime.” 
O’Keefe called the number on the back of the EBT card to ask about the differences between EBT cash and EBT food. 
He asked, “I want to buy some kratom with by EBT cards, and they’re running it through as EBT cash. 
That’s allowed?” 
The man on the other end of the line said that using the cards to buy drugs was not allowed. 
The man later explained, “Now, when you pull out the cash, you can do it whatever you want with that cash. 
Once you put that card in the ATM and you pull out the money, do whatever you want with the money.” 
When O’Keefe asked outright, “Now I can pull out that cash from the EBT card and buy drugs with it,” the man replied, “whatever you want.” 
O’Keefe said, “The EBT representative openly acknowledges that despite banning these cards from tobacco and beer purchases, some EBT cash users are able to pull out the cash from an EBT terminal and then do whatever they want with the cash anyway. 
It begs the question: What is even the point of any of these regulations if the user can simply pull out the cash and go buy a big bag of illegal drugs or alcohol or anything with government-funded cash.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 23.5%Hannah Nightingale: 6.5%The Post Millennial: 6.4%Confirmation Bias23.5%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.5%The Post Millennial: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 24.2%Hannah Nightingale: 3.6%The Post Millennial: 3.3%Availability Heuristic24.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.8%The Post Millennial: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.2%Hannah Nightingale: 0.4%The Post Millennial: 0.3%Hindsight Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.4%The Post Millennial: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Hannah Nightingale: 8.4%The Post Millennial: 10.3%Framing Effect13.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 2.2%The Post Millennial: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.2%The Post Millennial: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.3%The Post Millennial: 0.5%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.1%The Post Millennial: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Hannah Nightingale: 2.3%The Post Millennial: 1.8%Pessimism Bias9.4%This article: 28.1%Hannah Nightingale: 10.2%The Post Millennial: 10.4%Negativity Bias28.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.9%The Post Millennial: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.9%The Post Millennial: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.2%The Post Millennial: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.0%The Post Millennial: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.7%The Post Millennial: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.4%The Post Millennial: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.0%The Post Millennial: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.2%The Post Millennial: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 2.2%The Post Millennial: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.9%The Post Millennial: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.7%The Post Millennial: 2.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 9.4%Hannah Nightingale: 3.4%The Post Millennial: 1.5%False Dilemma9.4%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.4%The Post Millennial: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.7%Hannah Nightingale: 4.7%The Post Millennial: 5.8%Hasty Generalization8.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 9.4%The Post Millennial: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 25.4%Hannah Nightingale: 1.7%The Post Millennial: 1.2%Begging the Question25.4%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.1%The Post Millennial: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 2.4%The Post Millennial: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.5%The Post Millennial: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.1%Hannah Nightingale: 1.4%The Post Millennial: 1.3%Anecdotal11.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.3%Hannah Nightingale: 2.0%The Post Millennial: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.3%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.3%The Post Millennial: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.1%The Post Millennial: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.5%Hannah Nightingale: 2.5%The Post Millennial: 1.4%Unattributed Quote15.5%This article: 10.2%Hannah Nightingale: 1.8%The Post Millennial: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection10.2%This article: 26.9%Hannah Nightingale: 5.6%The Post Millennial: 6.1%Biased Writer Voice26.9%This article: 15.3%Hannah Nightingale: 1.6%The Post Millennial: 1.6%Indoctrination15.3%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.9%The Post Millennial: 6.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Hannah Nightingale: 0.2%The Post Millennial: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.6%

413 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers36%attributed speech263writer words
Selected voice

O’Keefe Media Group

79%flagged-word coverage
103 attributed words69% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Quote-first Misdirection+40.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%O’Keefe Media Group: 40.8%40.8%Biased Writer Voice+23.3 ptsWriter: 17.5%O’Keefe Media Group: 40.8%40.8%Indoctrination+37.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%O’Keefe Media Group: 37.9%37.9%Unattributed Quote-24.3 ptsWriter: 24.3%O’Keefe Media Group: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%O’Keefe Media Group: 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.