That may all be true, but it remains the case that every time I see a Reason link being thrown around it's one of these kinda suspect things. You know this is a junk piece. They ran it anyway. Again: how much work does it take to assign a journalist and call the police department to verify the arrest records?
I didn't believe you (because my blood boiled too) but then I decided to search for this story in Google (without using names but just the incident and location) and didn't find any reputed news organization reporting it, which admittedly surprised me. I found a similar case where parents got in trouble for letting kids walk around alone[0], but not this case (and considering the specifics here are bound to touch the nerves of parents and practically guarantee viewership, I would think that it would be pretty attractive piece to print for them assuming it was found to be genuine).
Not trying to agree/disagree but just sharing what I noticed.
The fact that you couldn't find it reported in another "reputed news organization" doesn't mean it didn't happen. News organizations only have limited bandwidth and the extreme power that police and CPS has in these kinds of situations isn't exactly a secret nationally. Maybe the reputed news organizations simply don't consider it news? Or maybe the organizations aren't as reputed as you believe? There are many explanations for the lack of corroborating reporting here that don't imply the original story isn't true.
> The fact that you couldn't find it reported in another "reputed news organization" doesn't mean it didn't happen.
But that's not the standard for good journalism! You appear to be saying we should believe this story in Reason despite the long delay from the events, uncorroborated evidence, and clear bias of the author... because we can't prove it's false?
No, that's wrong. The correct way to interpret the data is that this is a suspect piece of writing that someone should try to verify before trusting.
> But that's not the standard for good journalism! You appear to be saying we should believe this story in Reason despite the long delay from the events, uncorroborated evidence, and clear bias of the author... because we can't prove it's false?
Maybe - however, we are expected to do our own due diligence for trustworthiness of news and considering that we have limited time and resources at our disposal, one has to set some sort of an approach to do so - in my case, reputed news organisation it is (and people are free to disagree with that approach).
Using this approach doesn't mean that whatever doesn't get printed in NYT or WaPo or doesn't get covered on CNN didn't happen but considering police overreach is a hot topic in recent times with prevalent extensive coverage, it is possible but not probable that something like this (involving kids, which makes it a more "newsworthy" story) hasn't been reported, in any of the major news outlets, just because of undue influence of Police/CPS.
I can't really speak to this article, and as they've changed the family's name(s) for privacy reasons it's hard to fact check, but other stuff published by Lenore Skenazy about similar cases seems more readily verifiable. That said I don't really pay much attention to this type of story so I'm not well versed on the issue or who is credible in reporting on it. But for issues I do follow, I usually find their reporting to be excellent.
