I’ve been thinking about this story a good bit and talking about it with people since the ruling of actual malice came down a few days ago.<\/p>\n
My main thing as I’m sure will be that of others’ is that a lot of the account is based on one source. This is extremely tricky because you want the victims’ story to be told and respect what it is she has to say. Not talking to other people named to corroborate the story or at the least get more background on “Jackie” is poor practice.<\/p>\n
Frankly, there were so many missteps in this story, from not doing a full corroboration of facts to being just careless. It’s why actual malice was ruled, and why this is a careful study in how to go about reporting a sensitive story such as this one. I remember when it came out the cycle of reaction that came from it and the layers that emerged from it.<\/p>\n
It’s like the saying you tell us: If your mother says she loves you, fact check it. That maxim could’ve been useful here. Instead, this is where the story is at, plagued by bad reporting and a lack of proper sourcing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"