Thread by @magi_jay

I don't have a "theory." All I have are these facts:

You put a rape allegation into the public sphere w/o vetting the allegation or the source.

You have said there were time constraints that prevented your vetting.

You have been inconsistent about your contact w/ the source.

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1398629647965954052

Grim has said he was under time constraints so he couldn't vet the story. Reade also referenced timing in her tweet to Grim. It is not unreasonable to then question what went down here, especially given Grim has said timing prevented him from doing any vetting. What timing?

So I don't really have a theory, though there are a few obvious ones that come to mind. I mostly have questions:
-What were the time constraints?
-Did anyone bother to assess possible harm caused by unverified stories?
-Was there any political motivation?

I have more Qs. For ex, it seems to me like a lot of people claimed to care about Reade, but didn't do the real work before launching her into the public. After they made her public, others had to vet her publicly, including her mental health. How do they feel about this process?

Cause, I dunno, I would think that if you actually cared about Reade, or any source, or ethics more generally, you would vet beforehand, thus preventing a more publicized vetting that delved deep into a person's mental health

So, I have questions about the ethical process here

Can't say I have much of a "theory." Just a lot of questions.

And I don't care because I have some big narrative I want to feed. I care because we're talking about sexual assault here. We're talking about rape. And ethics in journalism matter. Especially on the topic of rape.