Over the past few years it's become really striking to me how dangerous it is when people attach their hopes re: a larger cause to a sensational story and let c

Over the past few years it's become really striking to me how dangerous it is when people attach their hopes re: a larger cause to a sensational story and let confirmation bias seep in. You saw it here with Erdely letting her crusade against campus rape (an admirable goal, obviously) draw her into an outlandish story rather than reporting on a less-sexy but more representative account, you saw it in Ferguson where people tied their (valid) desire to eliminate discriminatory policing to the now-debunked "hands up don't shoot" narrative, you saw it in the Ellen Pao case where a large contingent of women tied their (valid/desirable) aspirations for gender equality in the workplace to a flimsy/exceedingly nuanced case when there are undoubtedly a bunch of open-and-shut gender discrimination cases. In a click/cause-driven media environment, it behooves us to critically examine sources' leanings and blind spots upfront since it's become clear many can't do so themselves.