"Some guy says" stories are not really NEWS

There is a class of incidents where one party is not able to talk about the incident, either because of rules, common sense, or understandable self-interest.

Thus only one side of the story is talking to the press.

Not surprisingly, one source stories tend to be more dramatic because absent contrary comment there is no regulator on how dramatic the one side can be.

They also tend to be less reliable... for obvious reasons.

Tabloid-style journalism loves one-sided stories for their drama.

But stories that give only a student's side of why he was suspended, or give only the person suing's side of what the landlord did, or, for that matter, give only John Boehner's version of what was said in a meeting are not real news stories.

They are "A guy said some stuff" stories.

Person suing PetSmart says PetSmart sold his pet, dropped off for grooming, for medical experiments. PetSmart says they don't comment on pending lawsuits.

We now know little more than we knew before the story. All we *know* in journalistic terms is that somebody is suing somebody.

Was a kid really suspended for accidentally chewing a pop-tart into the shape of a gun? That's what the kid says. I heard him on the news last night.

I do not have any conviction as to whether the kid's side of the story is reliable. I have no idea. Maybe the kid is lying. (happens) Maybe the school acted in an insane fashion. (happens)

There is no way to know based solely on what some kid says.

That logical observation is not a slur on the kid, beyond saying he is a human being.

But here is a problem... in a one-sided story the normal sensible thing (to suspend any belief, absent useful evidence) plays out as calling the kid a liar.

Kid says X. Sensible person says, "Based on the slim evidence presented, I have no compelling reason to believe either X or non-X."

That is what anyone and everyone should do.

But doing that, in our non-logical world of emotion-driven society, means that you are not taking the kid's version as gospel which means (in the logic of bar-room brawls) you must be saying the kid is a liar.

But you are not saying that at all. You are saying that it would be ridiculous, logically, to form an opinion of whether or not the kid was lying with no two-sided evidence because human beings sometimes lie and sometimes tell the truth.

Reserving judgment is not an insult.

And it is okay, and even desirable, to have no judgment when there is no compelling reason to form a judgment.

Sadly, however, these things seem to get interpreted 90% in terms of prejudice.

As a teacher, I side with the teacher. As a parent, I side with the kid... or against the kid, depending on my experiences as a parent. As pro-gun, I feel that... as anti-gun I assume...

But there's no basis for thinking much of anything!

And local news has these stories every night. John Doe says the bus driver said something rude. Bus company said they have no comment.

What's the story? One human being in a city of millions says a thing. There is nothing there to go on.