Hiott was simply trying to cover herself, and her paper, in saying that the reporters "generally" do background checks.
It was highly typical that nothing/no one would have been background-checked in a "feel-good" feature case such as this. Unfortunately, that is especially true these days, when there "generally" is much less reporting/researching going on before things get published, anyway.
This example is exactly why there should be no "feel-good" stories, just well-reported stories, whatever that may mean in each case.
It's funny how, no matter how much we admire and appreciate and celebrate good writing, and no matter how much this industry changes and speeds up or the competition becomes more immediate or urgent due to all the new technology, really good journalism still always comes down to good reporting more than anything else.
For the most part, that aspect of our job is very under-emphasized, not well-enough taught and woefully under-appreciated.
This needed to be done right, and in its entirety, the first time around, or else, not at all. From a reporter's point of view, this is an example of that need for that. From a source/subject's perspective, this is an example of why full disclosure and some more nuanced preemptive handling is sometimes the best way to go.
If Adams had discussed her case/life with Lorenz the way she suddenly felt compelled to do with David Paulin, the AmericanThinker writer, the original story would have been much different, and yet, any reaction to it would have been manageable, and probably, mostly positive for all involved, anyway.
