I would expect the reporter to stick to the known facts of the case, and save the positioning statements for the reverend visiting from Houston they mentioned. Had he found he lacked the ability to offer conjecture of the defendants in the case, the least he could have done would have been to have offered opinions from both sides.
The way I read that article? 4 paragraphs describing the facts released on the case. In paragraph 5, a quick plea for sympathy for the defendants from somebody who knew them from their neighborhood. Paragraphs 6-11 return to a discussion of the facts. Then in paragraph 12, the author relays that the neighborhood found the girl to be dressed inappropriately and raised that "she hung around the neighborhood". In paragraph 13, the author relays the claim that the mother was responsible for not supervising the daughter.
The author then moves to conclusion, having only presented the opinions of one side involved in the dispute.
If you're an "impartial journalist", and you decide to relay one sides' spin, don't you think it's incumbent to relay it for all sides?
Or is it okay to pass along that the girl dressed like she was in her twenties, "hung around the neighborhood", had absentee parents?
Not even a word from the victim's family?
NOTE: The quotes around "hung around the neighborhood" are meant as air-quotes, not a direct quote from the story.
Bookmarks