" those, like Ms. Young, who doubt it happened base their doubt on the erroneous belief that the idea of a ten-year-old getting pregnant is so unlikely. "
That is not an accurate account of the basis of her doubt as she explains it. The main basis of her skepticism is that the story as reported lacks the standard foundation of journalis…
" those, like Ms. Young, who doubt it happened base their doubt on the erroneous belief that the idea of a ten-year-old getting pregnant is so unlikely. "
That is not an accurate account of the basis of her doubt as she explains it. The main basis of her skepticism is that the story as reported lacks the standard foundation of journalistic reliability, since it rests solely on one person's word, and the lead reporter "did not respond to a query asking whether additional sourcing was obtained."
If the reporter wants to assure people that her story is well founded, she should provide some basis to be confident that she has more than one person's word for it.
Demonstrating that it COULD have happened does not establish that this particular case actually did happen, and nowhere does Cathy say the story is impossible. Rather, she points out that the reporter provides insufficient basis to accept this specific case as factual without a doubt.
I'm fairly certain that the people who find her question about sourcing outrageous would be highly skeptical of a story based entirely on one person's word if that story served the agenda of their political opponents.
Oops. That is the very close to the argument made by people STILL believing Trump's Big Lie--just because the vote frauders did such a good job of covering their tracks doesn't mean the election wasn't stolen.
If the reason the story cannot be confirmed is to protect the child, that is a very good reason, but then the reporter who broke the story was irresponsible. It is possible to verify the story without outing the child.
Please. SCOTUS is not "now targeting contraception." ONE out of NINE justices mentioned revisiting Griswald v. Connecticut in a concurring opinion which no other justice joined. Even then if Griswald was reversed, the issue would simply go back to the states and how many states would pass a law banning contraception? I'm guessing none.
You are missing my point. A reporter being unable to verify a story doesn't mean it did not happen cannot be the standard for journalism. Right now there is some wiggle room because of the circumstances of the story. It is irresponsible to print a story for its political value. It also needs to be true. It may well prove to be true. We'll see. What is true is that the governor of South Dakota danced around the question of whether a 10-year should be required to carry to term. The interviewer sought repeatedly to get a straight answer, and finally got a version of "Two wrongs don't make a right." In other words, yes, the child would be required to carry to term.
" those, like Ms. Young, who doubt it happened base their doubt on the erroneous belief that the idea of a ten-year-old getting pregnant is so unlikely. "
That is not an accurate account of the basis of her doubt as she explains it. The main basis of her skepticism is that the story as reported lacks the standard foundation of journalistic reliability, since it rests solely on one person's word, and the lead reporter "did not respond to a query asking whether additional sourcing was obtained."
If the reporter wants to assure people that her story is well founded, she should provide some basis to be confident that she has more than one person's word for it.
Demonstrating that it COULD have happened does not establish that this particular case actually did happen, and nowhere does Cathy say the story is impossible. Rather, she points out that the reporter provides insufficient basis to accept this specific case as factual without a doubt.
I'm fairly certain that the people who find her question about sourcing outrageous would be highly skeptical of a story based entirely on one person's word if that story served the agenda of their political opponents.
I am not impressed by the depth of fact checking here.
First of all, I'd not expect the governor of the state to know about cases of child abuse being investigated.
These investigations are highly confidential and not shared with reporters or other curious members of the public.
And in most states the child protective services are organized by county. They contacted authorities in a few large cities.
And even if they contacted the correct jurisdiction, I just cannot imagine anyone divulging such sensitive information.
I'm inclined to take Dr. Barnard's word.
Oops. That is the very close to the argument made by people STILL believing Trump's Big Lie--just because the vote frauders did such a good job of covering their tracks doesn't mean the election wasn't stolen.
If the reason the story cannot be confirmed is to protect the child, that is a very good reason, but then the reporter who broke the story was irresponsible. It is possible to verify the story without outing the child.
It's also not true that "thousands of women" were dying of illegal abortions before *Roe* -- in the 1930s and 40s, yes, but not by the 1970s.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/
Please. SCOTUS is not "now targeting contraception." ONE out of NINE justices mentioned revisiting Griswald v. Connecticut in a concurring opinion which no other justice joined. Even then if Griswald was reversed, the issue would simply go back to the states and how many states would pass a law banning contraception? I'm guessing none.
You are missing my point. A reporter being unable to verify a story doesn't mean it did not happen cannot be the standard for journalism. Right now there is some wiggle room because of the circumstances of the story. It is irresponsible to print a story for its political value. It also needs to be true. It may well prove to be true. We'll see. What is true is that the governor of South Dakota danced around the question of whether a 10-year should be required to carry to term. The interviewer sought repeatedly to get a straight answer, and finally got a version of "Two wrongs don't make a right." In other words, yes, the child would be required to carry to term.
That's an excellent point, Terry, about the governor of South Dakota.