Honestly, I find it ironic. Ms. Young and Mr. Kessler (and many others) accused the original reporter of sloppy journalism because they wrote the story based on a single source. But it seems pretty clear to me that the journalist critics themselves did virtually zero research to see if such a story could be true.
I mean how hard could it…
Honestly, I find it ironic. Ms. Young and Mr. Kessler (and many others) accused the original reporter of sloppy journalism because they wrote the story based on a single source. But it seems pretty clear to me that the journalist critics themselves did virtually zero research to see if such a story could be true.
I mean how hard could it be to pick up the phone and call, say the Cuyahoga County DA's office and ask to speak to one of their prosecutors who specializes in child maltreatment cases for strictly background general information and explicitly not about any specific case?
When I was in fulltime practice reporters would call for that information and I ALWAYS took it as an opportunity to educate the reporter, to help them make sure they were looking for information in the right place and keep their facts straight.
I was counsel for FCCS in the ‘80s, and you and I both know they can’t confirm anything. What was inexcusable to me is that the doctor confirmed the procedure and the journalists pooh-poohed that.
Honestly, I find it ironic. Ms. Young and Mr. Kessler (and many others) accused the original reporter of sloppy journalism because they wrote the story based on a single source. But it seems pretty clear to me that the journalist critics themselves did virtually zero research to see if such a story could be true.
I mean how hard could it be to pick up the phone and call, say the Cuyahoga County DA's office and ask to speak to one of their prosecutors who specializes in child maltreatment cases for strictly background general information and explicitly not about any specific case?
When I was in fulltime practice reporters would call for that information and I ALWAYS took it as an opportunity to educate the reporter, to help them make sure they were looking for information in the right place and keep their facts straight.
No, they did much worse than that.
They - for all intents and purposes - said the Ohio doctor was lying.
"It's was single sourced! There's no report available to the public! It must not be true!"
The ONLY logical conclusion from that line of thinking is that the doctor WHO WAS QUOTED/SOURCED was lying.
I was counsel for FCCS in the ‘80s, and you and I both know they can’t confirm anything. What was inexcusable to me is that the doctor confirmed the procedure and the journalists pooh-poohed that.