They relied on an agency report
The Guardian explains its “Woman killed man” lie. The explain is: everybody else was doing it.
“It’s not our fault, we relied on an agency report, and we saw no reason to question the claim that a woman had murdered a man by hitting him on the head and strangling him shut up shut up shut UP.”
Breathtakingly feeble and incompetent.
He was sentenced to imprisonment in a men’s prison… I know the gobbos would get all up in my face about it, but if someone is sentenced to serve time in a men’s prison, you’d think that their maleness (and a name like “Scarlet”) would straight up tell anyone involved that he was a trans-whatever, so why not mention it?
Am I being ungenerous in my assessment of this response that it appears The Guardian does not feel it is reasonable for the reader to expect them to do journalism?
Well at the very least the Guardian does seem to feel completely cheerful about admitting it made a colossal damaging mistake in reporting because it copied someone else’s homework. And, in doing so, revealing that it doesn’t check when it sees an implausible claim such as “woman strangles man to death.”
To be fair, if the court insists on the charade, it is actually difficult for media to do otherwise.
I just don’t understand why his belief he is a cat is not given similar regard.