Giving one side of the story again

A lawyer e-mailed me on this. You can see at this site a massive article in the SST about a woman called Erica and how in a marital dispute she could not afford a lawyer, and how the Judge didn’t allow her to miss a court hearing due to her having cancer. It quotes her saying she needs $300,000 for her future medical care. The entire article is based on what she said, and no attempt was made it seems to talk to anyone else.

Two weeks later, this article appeared, quoting the Family Court principal judge. He provided an extract from the oncologist who said “This is a low grade disease …”, and also how she had withdrawn from various sale agreements which had been reached, and then finally refused to communicate with her ex-husband anymore to try and reach a resolution.

It gives a very different perspective to the original article, and this information should have been in the original article. How is it good journalism to just take allegations, and not seek a response?