5 ms·

While the details were significantly different. Like how the parents didn't teach legally required topics, and like how the judge supposedly ruled based on the

• like_any_other 3mo ago
  > Like how the parents didn't teach legally required topics The article said what they didn't teach, and that the court didn't like it. That those topics were legally required was implied - it's certainly how I interpreted it, despite no explicit line saying "oh by the way these topics are legally required/not required". In other words, the article didn't state it explicitly either way, the reasonable disambiguation is the correct one, and yet you're treating the absence of explicit disambiguation as a "significant" factual error. > dislike of funk and sertanejo was a claim from the family, and apparently not based on the ruling. No, according to you, it was "a claim made by the defense attorney in the appeal". That's a lot more trustworthy than just a random claim. Presumably lying (about things easily verifiable from a court transcript) in a legal filing is not looked kindly upon by courts, so it's reasonable to believe it. > and apparently not based on the ruling. The exact words were: The court also concluded that because the girls, aged 15 and 11, did not like “trap” or “sertanejo” (folk) music It doesn't say it was part of the ruling, only that it led to the ruling (since the judge stated it as a negative during court proceedings). I agree the wording could have been better, but as it can give the impression those words were in the actual final written judgment, not just the cause for that judgment. But that's a distinction without a difference. The only error (or rather, significant omission) is that the article should have mentioned the jail term was "limited release" or whatever modified sentence they got. That's it, and that's apparently enough to entirely dismiss reporting when you'd rather people just shut up about it. By this bar you could dismiss nearly any story from the BBC or the New York Times too.