azwriter
Sister Mary Wanna
It is corrupt if they named a source and the info was not accurate. LE do not routinely pull stories out of their hat. Greenwood either got the information from one of the people involved or the paper is making up what Greenwood said. I cannot imagine a Lt. in the LE not verifying the fact before he put it out there.
Having been on the other end of a notebook, reporting fresh from the scene, I can believe an officer will give incomplete or wrong information about what's ocurred. They sum up what seems to be the case before gathering all the witness statements or LE reports. It's happened to me. A reporter relies on what's reported from officials and witnesses at that moment. That's why follow-up stories are so important. As the case developes, so do the articles and reports that follow.
LE is suppose to be cautious when they arrive on the scene. What they report to the press should be prefaced with "At this time it appears...".
The reporter needs to stress in the article what time frame these comments were given. Many times an editor might hold back an initial article until more solid fact are available. But deadlines or the importance of the case can hamper that decision. A missing child story would rank in importance to get it out to the reading public.
I guess I'm just defending my former profession. We're only as good as our sources and our ability to confirm when it comes to reporting. Sigh!