Chellee Taylor

My thoughts on the recent columns (Friday Roundup and the "opinion" post) by @markwingdallas regarding the @netgrace_org investigation related to David Pooler: Journalists are absolutely right to ask hard questions. That’s not the issue for me here. The problem is asking those questions while either knowingly (or sloppily) omitting critical context. For decades, virtually every major news organization has declined to identify alleged victims of sexual assault or harassment without their consent. The Society of Professional Journalists likewise urges heightened sensitivity when reporting on victims of sexual misconduct. So why portray a report’s decision to protect victims’ identities as though it’s somehow improper or evidence of a lack of credibility? Also, the GRACE report was not authored by an anonymous source making anonymous accusations. It was commissioned by a named organization and prepared by a named independent investigative organization. Protecting victims’ identities is not the same as shielding anonymous accusers. If there were genuine concerns about the report’s methodology, why didn't Mark simply reach out to GRACE or the commissioning organization directly before writing? For example, Mark writes, "According to GRACE’s website, anonymity is the default position for its investigations. Why?" Perhaps Mark should have attempted to answer that question by actually reaching out to GRACE. Finally, there is an important distinction between reporting the news and advocating a personal viewpoint. When a reporter covers a story and then quickly publishes opinion pieces criticizing or defending it, the line between objective reporting and commentary can blur. At a minimum, it creates the appearance of a conflict. Credibility depends not only on fairness but also on the appearance of fairness. If Mark had approached this as a journalist rather than an opinion writer, he likely would have found answers to many of the questions he raised.