The June 20th Philadephia Inquirer article is rather a sloppy piece but the subject is so visceral that such things are overlooked.
All is told from the point of view of the wronged girl. I don't claim she speaks untruthfully. It is simply that, humans being what they are, we are inclined to remember things the way we remember them...embellish certain points and downplay or forget others. For example, when the judge recalled certain things in a matter-of-fact way, the victim says that's not how she recalled it, and the reporter at that point forgets all about the judge and runs with the victim. I suspect that the judge recollects it more accurately, because he has not carried the emotional baggage for two decades.
When Lett, many years later, speaks of 'apostate lies,' the reporter presents it as though he is calling his old friend a liar. Of course, he is not. No one says that the bare facts of the abuse case is a lie; it is the spin that enemies (which now seem to include the Inquirer) put on it that is the lie.
I answered at some length the Inquirer's first story and emailed it to two editors and the reporter. It was never acknowledged in any way. Instead, the reporter followed through on remarks he had made on the Reddit forum, that he had more material in the hopper that he considered damning to the Witnesses. This story appears to be what he had in mind.
I take it as evidence that the Philadelphia Inqurer wants this story told one and only one way. If there is anything to mitigate a damning verdict, they do not want to hear it. Of course, they have a story. No one would say that they do not. It is a variation of the "If it bleeds it leads" theme - a familiar staple of journalism and not so terrible in itself, but the refusal to consider or even acknowledge a different lens through which the topic might be viewed, is to paint the Inquirer, imo, as a not very good newspaper. Adding to this perception is that the paper does not seem to have a comment section for its online articles.
Comment sections are not necessarily great, as they attract many a moron, especially on 'hot' topics. But they have become standard fare, and the fact that the Inquirer does not have one seems but another indicator that they will breach no dissent on what stories they report.
It is the religious version of the shabby journalism that has become the norm today. Reporters of the right or left hype up their view to the point of hysteria, and refuse to look at things that in any way confound their conclusions.