Sins of the parents

[loCAtek]

I met them while at a foster parenting class, which pretty much means you're approved, you just have to finish the official training. I'm pretty sure they got it, the bio-mother was supportive of them and they sounded like great parents.

[Andrew D]

I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US, quotes have to be accurately assigned to who gave them.

Utter hogwash. Are you really unaware of the widespread use of anonymous sources?

Neither the assertion that the child is allowed only 700 calories per day nor the description of her allegedly typical diet is attributed to anyone. The source(s) of both is/are anonymous.

[loCAtek]

Of course I'm aware of that, because in the US, journalists credit an anonymous source by saying; 'spoke on condition that he remain anonymous'; or, 'on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press'; or variations of that.

Unless they do it differently in the UK, the assumption is that they are referring to someone already identified in the interview.

[Big RR]

I disagree Lo; even in the US, unless a quote or information is unambiguously attributed to a person, the assumption is that anyone could have provided it, not necessarily someone who was interviewed in the article. Certainly it is clearer to say "a source who asked not to be identified said ...", but when space is at a premium (to make room for more ads, usually), such niceties are often omitted.

[Andrew D]

Of course I'm aware of that, because in the US, journalists credit an anonymous source by saying; 'spoke on condition that he remain anonymous'; or, 'on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press'; or variations of that.

Unless they do it differently in the UK, the assumption is that they are referring to someone already identified in the interview.

That may be your assumption, but it is not widely shared. Most of us recognize that unattributed assertions could come from anywhere.

[loCAtek]

Not an assumption, but good journalism to name your sources, or else you lose credibility.

...which this tabloid didn't have a lot of to begin with.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Not an assumption, but good journalism to name your sources, or else you lose credibility.

Woodward and Bernstein?

[loCAtek]

They used anonymous sources, such as is done today, which were credible because their info was accurate. They used were legitimate 'inside sources'.

Using an "anonymous" source to support unsubstantiated data, smacks of yellow journalism.

[Andrew D]

Unless they do it differently in the UK, the assumption is that they are referring to someone already identified in the interview.

Not an assumption, but good journalism to name your sources, or else you lose credibility.

More of the usual, then ....

[loCAtek]

What, the first quote was in regards to NON-anonymous interviewees.

In the second, I was stating what I believed good journalism is.

So, they both contained the word 'assumption', what does grammar-Nazism have to do with the topic on hand?

The point was; the whole article was manipulative by not saying who made the claims about what the child ate; was it the mother, the child herself or an anonymous and perhaps false source? That makes all the difference.

[Joe Guy]

Nobody has commented on the fact that the girl's mother has apparently had her on a "strict" diet for six years.

It's interesting that the child hasn't been removed from her mother after all these years.

Anybody want to guess why that is?

Here's a hint:

There is no apparent abuse or neglect.

[Andrew D]

Oh, for Christ's sake. If a source is "NON-anonymous," one doesn't need to make any "assumption" at all about the source's identity.

It's not about "grammar-Nazism". It's about the fact that, as is so often the case, you don't know what you're saying from one minute to the next.

[loCAtek]

Well, as far the debate goes, we (yes, you, I and most following this thread) are agreeing that parts, if not all, of this story are fabricated.