One of the problems is that seemingly no one waits or works for confirmation any more. Gotta get the piece out NOW, because of how fast the news/media cycle moves. have to be on topic. Have to be relevant.
When people DO wait, they get abused for waiting--because they are "ignoring it" or the don't think whatever it is is "important."
One of the problems is that seemingly no one waits or works for confirmation any more. Gotta get the piece out NOW, because of how fast the news/media cycle moves. have to be on topic. Have to be relevant.
When people DO wait, they get abused for waiting--because they are "ignoring it" or the don't think whatever it is is "important."
Another gift of the digital, online, 24/7/365 news cycle and social media,
I think people here are pissed at Cathy, not because of the rationale behind her piece, which is that there are journalistic standards and journalistic publications should adhere to them, but because of the nature of the piece she was criticizing. I'm seeing two lines of criticism of her, and neither are fair:
1) The story was "truthy," ie, it seemed like it could be true, and certainly there is a story out there like it that is true, so Cathy was out of line to criticize the process that led to its publication.
2) Cathy was in the wrong because she said the story was false. This is not fair because that's not what Cathy was saying. She was saying given her analysis of the information she had about the story, she doubted it was true. But she acknowledged it could still be true.
Indeed, the story does appear to be an illustration of attempting to be first, and eschewing journalistic standards to be first even if it may risk not being right. If the Columbus Dispatch had waited until there was an arrest, or had otherwise adhered to regular standards, no one would have had this conversation.
And, if Cathy had written a piece in October of 2020 criticizing shoddy journalism that went into a piece about Hunter Biden's laptop, no one here would have attacked her for it in the comments, even if the story in the piece might have turned out to be true.
My issue with her story is that she ignored all the reasons that the article could not be better sourced, and the editors standing behind the sourcing. Finally she stated that it was extremely unlikely that a 10 year old was seeking and abortion in the first place and suggested that in any case, it was unbelievable she would need to cross state lines because of the exceptions for serious heath situations for the mom (seemingly she was unbothered by the idea there were no explicit exemptions for incest).
Yes, and it's interesting she didn't write her newsletter last Sunday after turning out to have been spectacularly wrong about the incident and astonishingly adversarial to commenters. If she wasn't able to do so because of a personal matter, I understand and wish her well, but if she was hiding behind work, vacation, or some other flimsy excuse, that's lame.
I disagree, or at least suggest there is a #3 that many people here agree with. That #3 is not the subject or her take on it but how she responded in the comments when people with far more expertise provided rebuttals to her points. There was no "Interesting, thanks for sharing that; that's definitely something to think about." Instead, she was dismissive and arrogant and just doubled down.
I'd say more that she was in the wrong due to her framing (and then the follow up in the comments).
Here's what I wrote below:
----
Nothing wrong with a statement that says, "hey, this story has just a single source. I have no specific reason to disbelieve it, but I'm also not going to just assume it is 100% true either."
Making a full length article to highlight all the reasons for active doubt rather than patient skepticism is quite a bit different than that, even if a technical line wasn't crossed.
----
And if the main point is about journalistic integrity then make that the main point. Pretty easy to do, if that's what a writer wants to do. "Whether this story is true or not is beside the point I'd like to make: "
Also, I don't believe it was the Columbus Dispatch that didn't wait. They're the ones that reported on the arrest and the apparent dishonesty of the Ohio AG.
I thought you had decided to take a principled stand against reading anything Cathy wrote on Sundays.
I don't think she gave her opinion without facts. She laid out a litany of facts as to why the story ought to be approached with skepticism, due to the shortcomings of the journalistic process that led to its publication.
If she came to an opinion on the story without enough information, then you also came to an opinion without enough information, and the Indy Star wrote the story without enough information, because we were all working with the same information. If people can't write pieces unless they have perfect information on events that haven't happened yet, like the arrest of this fiend, then we're not going to have a whole lot to read. We form opinions based on the facts at hand, and when the facts change, or new facts emerge, our opinions should change, too.
So you concluded that no one should come to a conclusion, but lots of people did come to conclusions, and Cathy was the one you wanted to argue with. I understand there were circumstances that may have made getting better sourcing problematic. But if you can’t get better sourcing for your story, whatever the reason, maybe your story is not fit for publication. Journalism still has standards and practices.
I guess I'm inclined to defend her because I found her piece persuasive at the time, and having given it a second look just now, I actually find it more persuasive. It's pretty extraordinary to move forward on a piece apparently based on hearsay from one source, and when Cathy said she was "leaning strongly toward 'probably didn't happen'", that's about where I fell, too. The commenters did make some good points about why one might expect sourcing to be hard to come by, though. But, I think the outcome is likely to be that fewer stories are reported, rather than lots of stories are reported based on poor journalistic practices because the environment will not allow proper journalism to take place. Neither outcome is particularly welcome, and we have the GOP to thank for all of it. You have a good evening, too.
One of the problems is that seemingly no one waits or works for confirmation any more. Gotta get the piece out NOW, because of how fast the news/media cycle moves. have to be on topic. Have to be relevant.
When people DO wait, they get abused for waiting--because they are "ignoring it" or the don't think whatever it is is "important."
Another gift of the digital, online, 24/7/365 news cycle and social media,
I think people here are pissed at Cathy, not because of the rationale behind her piece, which is that there are journalistic standards and journalistic publications should adhere to them, but because of the nature of the piece she was criticizing. I'm seeing two lines of criticism of her, and neither are fair:
1) The story was "truthy," ie, it seemed like it could be true, and certainly there is a story out there like it that is true, so Cathy was out of line to criticize the process that led to its publication.
2) Cathy was in the wrong because she said the story was false. This is not fair because that's not what Cathy was saying. She was saying given her analysis of the information she had about the story, she doubted it was true. But she acknowledged it could still be true.
Indeed, the story does appear to be an illustration of attempting to be first, and eschewing journalistic standards to be first even if it may risk not being right. If the Columbus Dispatch had waited until there was an arrest, or had otherwise adhered to regular standards, no one would have had this conversation.
And, if Cathy had written a piece in October of 2020 criticizing shoddy journalism that went into a piece about Hunter Biden's laptop, no one here would have attacked her for it in the comments, even if the story in the piece might have turned out to be true.
My issue with her story is that she ignored all the reasons that the article could not be better sourced, and the editors standing behind the sourcing. Finally she stated that it was extremely unlikely that a 10 year old was seeking and abortion in the first place and suggested that in any case, it was unbelievable she would need to cross state lines because of the exceptions for serious heath situations for the mom (seemingly she was unbothered by the idea there were no explicit exemptions for incest).
Yes, and it's interesting she didn't write her newsletter last Sunday after turning out to have been spectacularly wrong about the incident and astonishingly adversarial to commenters. If she wasn't able to do so because of a personal matter, I understand and wish her well, but if she was hiding behind work, vacation, or some other flimsy excuse, that's lame.
I disagree, or at least suggest there is a #3 that many people here agree with. That #3 is not the subject or her take on it but how she responded in the comments when people with far more expertise provided rebuttals to her points. There was no "Interesting, thanks for sharing that; that's definitely something to think about." Instead, she was dismissive and arrogant and just doubled down.
I'd say more that she was in the wrong due to her framing (and then the follow up in the comments).
Here's what I wrote below:
----
Nothing wrong with a statement that says, "hey, this story has just a single source. I have no specific reason to disbelieve it, but I'm also not going to just assume it is 100% true either."
Making a full length article to highlight all the reasons for active doubt rather than patient skepticism is quite a bit different than that, even if a technical line wasn't crossed.
----
And if the main point is about journalistic integrity then make that the main point. Pretty easy to do, if that's what a writer wants to do. "Whether this story is true or not is beside the point I'd like to make: "
Also, I don't believe it was the Columbus Dispatch that didn't wait. They're the ones that reported on the arrest and the apparent dishonesty of the Ohio AG.
I thought you had decided to take a principled stand against reading anything Cathy wrote on Sundays.
I don't think she gave her opinion without facts. She laid out a litany of facts as to why the story ought to be approached with skepticism, due to the shortcomings of the journalistic process that led to its publication.
If she came to an opinion on the story without enough information, then you also came to an opinion without enough information, and the Indy Star wrote the story without enough information, because we were all working with the same information. If people can't write pieces unless they have perfect information on events that haven't happened yet, like the arrest of this fiend, then we're not going to have a whole lot to read. We form opinions based on the facts at hand, and when the facts change, or new facts emerge, our opinions should change, too.
So you concluded that no one should come to a conclusion, but lots of people did come to conclusions, and Cathy was the one you wanted to argue with. I understand there were circumstances that may have made getting better sourcing problematic. But if you can’t get better sourcing for your story, whatever the reason, maybe your story is not fit for publication. Journalism still has standards and practices.
I guess I'm inclined to defend her because I found her piece persuasive at the time, and having given it a second look just now, I actually find it more persuasive. It's pretty extraordinary to move forward on a piece apparently based on hearsay from one source, and when Cathy said she was "leaning strongly toward 'probably didn't happen'", that's about where I fell, too. The commenters did make some good points about why one might expect sourcing to be hard to come by, though. But, I think the outcome is likely to be that fewer stories are reported, rather than lots of stories are reported based on poor journalistic practices because the environment will not allow proper journalism to take place. Neither outcome is particularly welcome, and we have the GOP to thank for all of it. You have a good evening, too.