Review: Jae Stephens deserves a larger stage  and more hearts to break  in Lollapalooza debut 83%

By Matt Moore96%

8/2/2026, 5:00:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Halo Effect, and Anecdotal, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 42.2% saturation with 121 hits. Analysis detected 1,129 faulty-reasoning hits from 287 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.9% and a BS Rank of 83% (4,922 of 28,112 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.50% of the article peer group.

Jae Stephens makes music for heartbreakers. 
That much was true for the Los Angeles-based pop and R&B singer during her Lollapalooza debut Saturday on the BMI stage, where she sang odes to keeping a roster of men for options  and loving and leaving without regard. 
“Which one should I choose today? 
Switch ’em out like shoes today,” she sang on her single “SMH,” with a sly smile to the delight of the crowd, who erupted when Stephens brought out Chicago’s very own Shea Couleé to snap into fierce choreography alongside her. 
Jae Stephens performs on the BMI stage on Day 3 of Lollapalooza in Grant Park on Saturday. 
Giacomo Cain/For the Sun-Times 
Songs like “Him&Him&Him” had a bubbly lightness reminiscent of SWV’s 1998 classic “So Into You,” though Stephens’ was a little less tender  “I never save their numbers, just here for the summer,” she sang while popping on stage. 
And her song “Precious” had a bounce that conjured images of Ciara. 
In response to the loud cheers for her, Stephens appeared to get emotional onstage, before clicking back into stunt mode. 
Stephens and two backup dancers hit their marks, dedicating choreo to each song while Stephens kept singing without a hint of sounding winded, as if she trained at the Destiny’s Child academy for pop’s next big star. 
In reality, Stephens, 29, has cut her teeth in the music industry and as a performer, releasing several mixtapes and writing songs for the likes of Jennifer Lopez. 
Clocking in at just 30 minutes, Stephens felt deserving of a larger stage, longer set time and more hearts to break. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 3.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 3.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.8%Matt Moore: 4.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Availability Heuristic17.8%This article: 15.7%Matt Moore: 6.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic15.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 12.9%Matt Moore: 3.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias12.9%This article: 27.2%Matt Moore: 6.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.9%Framing Effect27.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Matt Moore: 1.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect7.3%This article: 13.2%Matt Moore: 3.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.3%Optimism Bias13.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.9%Matt Moore: 5.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 6.4%Negativity Bias20.9%This article: 9.8%Matt Moore: 2.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias9.8%This article: 7.0%Matt Moore: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error7.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Matt Moore: 3.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias13.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 32.4%Matt Moore: 24.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Halo Effect32.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Matt Moore: 2.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Primacy Effect9.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.8%Matt Moore: 4.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.1%Appeal to Authority9.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.1%Matt Moore: 3.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.7%Hasty Generalization2.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 13.9%Matt Moore: 3.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Bandwagon13.9%This article: 42.2%Matt Moore: 12.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion42.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.0%Matt Moore: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 13.6%Matt Moore: 3.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Composition/Division13.6%This article: 31.7%Matt Moore: 7.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Anecdotal31.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.0%Matt Moore: 3.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.4%Matt Moore: 2.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%Unattributed Quote9.4%This article: 13.9%Matt Moore: 3.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection13.9%This article: 39.7%Matt Moore: 32.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice39.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Moore: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Matt Moore: 1.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.3%

287 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker16%attributed speech241writer words
Selected voice

Jae Stephens

100%flagged-word coverage
46 attributed words100% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%45.0%90.0%Biased Writer Voice+56.3 ptsWriter: 30.7%Jae Stephens: 87.0%87.0%Quote-first Misdirection-16.6 ptsWriter: 16.6%Jae Stephens: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+4.3 ptsWriter: 8.7%Jae Stephens: 13.0%13.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Jae Stephens: 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.