"A mentally ill woman attacked the Pope..."
"A mentally ill man attacked the Premier..."
Why does no one ask why? Twice?
1. Why did they attack this specific public figure?
2. Why do those reporting the event not want to explore the answer to the first why?
Just because someone's crazy does not mean they're wrong.
Just because someone attacks a public figure does not mean they are mentally ill (the attacker OR the public figure).
As soon as a reporter presupposes mental illness, (almost) no one even asks what led the woman to decide the Pope had to be attacked. Their message, reasons, concerns all drop out of everyone's informational radar. No one needs to actually counter any arguments, refute or reveal any facts or investigate a possible story.
"Several mentally lazy reporters failed to investigate what motivated the woman who attacked of the Pope."
There's a headline you will likely never see.
