> I think it is a critical omission by this article of this woman's former homelessness.
"Person with no prospects takes too-good-to-be-true job offer that turns out to be helping do crime."
The specific details (homeless vs living with parents in a trailer park vs barely affording something etc) aren't really relevant. Any of those are roughly the same: someone in a shitty situation isn't careful enough when trying to get out of that situation.
The general situation (no prospects) is aiui fairly typical. Which makes it not news[1], and therefore not much of an omission at all much less a critical one.
[1] "Dog bites man" is not news; "man bites dog" is news.
> The general situation (no prospects) is aiui fairly typical. Which makes it not news, and therefore not much of an omission at all much less a critical one.
Whether it is "news" or not affects whether you choose to report on the story. It is not relevant to the context you provide when you report on in the content of said story.
> "Dog bites man" is not news; "man bites dog" is news.
That's a headline, not the content. If a man ended up in jail because his hand was bloody, and you decide to report on it, it absolutely behooves you to mention that it was because a dog bit him, vs. letting readers wonder if he's some sort of criminal.
Really? I see the fact that she was homeless as a failure of the system that she ended up unwittingly becoming a bad actor in, perhaps due to desparation.
"Person with no prospects takes too-good-to-be-true job offer that turns out to be helping do crime."
The specific details (homeless vs living with parents in a trailer park vs barely affording something etc) aren't really relevant. Any of those are roughly the same: someone in a shitty situation isn't careful enough when trying to get out of that situation.
The general situation (no prospects) is aiui fairly typical. Which makes it not news[1], and therefore not much of an omission at all much less a critical one.
[1] "Dog bites man" is not news; "man bites dog" is news.