this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
422 points (96.9% liked)
Not The Onion
12356 readers
147 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is why you check the story against multiple sources. Just search “brittany patterson georgia” and you will find this has gone viral and there is tons of outrage over this.
I haven't found a story that doesn't use Reason as their source. I only found one that tried to contact the police department for comment, but they hadn't responded.
So we do still only have one truly distinct account of this story, which is the mom's side of the ordeal.
Virality and outrage don't make a story more accurate.
We don't know why the woman who encountered the boy on the road called the police. We don't know what the kid was doing at the time. Was he walking to the side of the road? Was he walking on the road? Did he seem "off" in some way that made it so that the woman called the police? Were there previous warnings that that road was dangerous?
Police set up a safety plan for the son, that involved making sure someone always knew where he was. Why was that done? Multiple people in the PD all looked at the case and decided this was the right course of action, why?
I'll judge once I hear what the police says their motivations were. They could have well stepped over the line here. Or there were legitimate concerns for the child's safety.
I haven't seen many references to Reason, and previous to this story I had not heard of them before. Most of the stories I am seeing are sourcing the mother. She seems to be doing a lot of interviews.
I never made claims regarding knowing the full story. Not sure anyone can know the full story until the other parties start talking. I was only responding to the claim that the story should be dismissed because of the source, and claims of what the sources motivations are.
I am supportive of reserving judgement for when more information comes out. I am just not supportive of jumping to the conclusion that because the linked article is from a questionable or biased source that it is automatically dismissed as fabrication and/or propaganda. Especially when there is so many organization who seem to be in defense of the mother.