On Saturday, October 4, the home of South Carolina Circuit Court Judge Diane Schafer Goodstein burned down, prompting a flurry of media coverage from mainstream publications across the spectrum that relied on unconfirmed, nebulous sourcing and spread split narratives.
Key Details and Local Reporting
The judge’s house, valued at over $1.5 million and located in Edisto Beach, SC, reportedly caught fire around 11:30 a.m. on Saturday while she was out walking her dogs on the beach.
When the fire broke out, her husband, former Democratic state senator Arnold Goodstein, was reportedly home with other family members. The family was forced to jump out the window of the three-story waterfront property and was later rescued from the adjacent marshland. Three were reportedly hospitalized, and Arnold Goodstein, age 81, reportedly suffered serious injuries.
The South Carolina Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Kittredge reportedly sent a message on Saturday afternoon that the fire was caused by an “apparent explosion,” prompting an investigation from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED).
All of this was reported on October 4 by the South Carolinian outlet FITSNews (not rated by AllSides), which described the fire as “alleged arson” and reported speaking to “multiple sources close to Goodstein” who said she had received death threats in recent weeks and years.
Though it wasn’t mentioned in FITSNews’ report, on September 2, Goodstein temporarily blocked South Carolina’s election commission from complying with an executive order President Trump signed in March that stated intentions of “preserving and protecting” American election integrity. South Carolina’s Supreme Court overturned her ruling about a week later, on September 11.
Around 4 p.m. ET on October 6, SLED chief Mark Keel announced the organization did not find evidence “to indicate the fire was intentionally set” or “to support a pre-fire explosion.”
Nonetheless, on the same day, a litany of major mainstream publications had already decided to run with the aforementioned details, spinning, slanting, and sensationalizing coverage to guide readers and one Democratic congressman to believe the fire was an act of political violence.
How The Media Covered It
FITSNews appeared to be the only news source that offered original reporting from the area and the source of the narratives that manifested through both national and international media.
Though AllSides has not rated FITSNews for bias, its coverage can be looked at in tandem with that of its South Carolinian peer, Live 5 WCSC (Center bias). WCSC, ostensibly not as close to the situation as FITSNews was, authored much shorter and more cautious coverage on October 4. WCSC’s coverage noted that three were sent to the hospital, that the fire’s origins were “unclear,” and that Chief Justice Kittredge said there was “an incident involving Circuit Court Judge Diane Goodstein.”
But several major mainstream publications ran with the narrative implied by FITSNews’ original report, that there was an “explosion” and Goodstein had received death threats in recent weeks. They also mostly coupled this with Goodstein’s since-overturned ruling against Trump in early September.
The following outlets mentioned FITSNews by name in coverage:
People (Lean Left) wrote the headline: “S.C. Judge's Home Erupts in Flames with Family Inside After She Ruled Against Trump and Began Receiving Death Threats”
Time Magazine (Lean Left) wrote: “Investigation ‘Ongoing’ After House of South Carolina Judge Criticized by Trump Administration Burns Down”
The Independent (Lean Left) wrote in its headline, “South Carolina judge’s $1.5m home destroyed in huge fire with family forced to jump out of window,” and then in its subhead that Goodstein “ruled against Trump administration last month.”
Newsweek (Center) wrote: “Judge Diane Goodstein’s Home Burns To Ground After Ruling Against Trump”
The Telegraph (Lean Right), a Lean Right outlet that has been notably critical of Trump and the American right in recent months, wrote: “Judge received death threats before her house went up in flames”
The Telegraph also misled readers by writing, “The cause of the fire remains unclear, but local officials reported it began with an ‘explosion’ and that Judge Goodstein had received death threats in the past month.” The South Carolinian official the publication appeared to be referring to was Chief Justice Kittredge, who was FITSNews’ source for saying there was an “explosion.”
While Kittredge is presumably in touch with Goodstein, South Carolina’s Supreme Court is located a 2.5-hour drive away in the capital, Columbia. Attributing this quote to “local officials” implies that the report came from a group of officials who visited the scene of the incident, not a singular judge, who, in this instance, probably only knew what he was told by those in Edisto Beach – including Goodstein herself.
Neither Fox News (Right) nor The Daily Mail (Right) mentioned FITSNews by name, but both described the incident as a “suspected arson.”
Fox’s report was more cautious. It did not mention a potential “explosion” or the anonymously sourced FITSNews detail that Goodstein had recently been receiving death threats. It also didn’t mention that the judge recently ruled against Trump, though neither did FITSNews.
Fox did link to The Daily Mail’s coverage, however, which included an exclusive quote from Goodstein herself, who told the paper, “I’m alright.”
Fox’s headline initially said the fire was a “possible arson,” also indicative of its gentler approach, and when SLED determined there was no evidence to support this, it updated its headline accordingly.
The New York Post (Lean Right) took a similar approach to Fox, though it didn’t mention that “arson” was a possibility and just noted that SLED was investigating.
Perhaps equally notable is that several major outlets held off on covering the story altogether until there was more official information available.
For instance, neither Associated Press (Left) nor The New York Times (Lean Left) touched the story until later on October 6, when local officials said there was no evidence of arson. Neither outlet mentioned Goodstein’s ruling against Trump or the alleged threats she faced, and only mentioned an “explosion” in the context that authorities found no reason to believe there was one.
The Wall Street Journal (Center) took a similar approach by waiting, though it mentioned in a photo footnote that Goodstein recently ruled against Trump.
Reuters (Center), on the other hand, never even published a story about the fire.
While it was primarily outlets from the left that gave air to the notion that Goodstein’s house burning down could have been an act of retribution or political violence, the bias present in this story may go a bit deeper than just left and right.
With outlets like The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, and New York Times deliberating before covering it, and outlets like The New York Post, People, and Newsweek covering it quickly, it could reveal that some outlets have a higher standard for what is credible reporting.
Within the group of outlets that did jump on the story, Fox and The New York Post handled the story more carefully. This could be for the same reason that the aforementioned outlets deliberated over covering the story. Or it could be that they didn’t want to give air to the idea that the fire could have been an act of political violence, like some of their peers on the left were less careful in doing.
Furthermore, British outlets The Daily Mail and The Telegraph stood apart from Fox and The Post and ran coverage more similar to American outlets like People and Newsweek. Both of these British outlets have generally been more critical of the American right during Trump’s presidency than American outlets on the right have been.
In any case, the story is a perfect example of why readers should look for primary sources and original reports, stay patient, and consume media from outlets of all different types and biases before jumping to conclusions.
Andy Gorel is a News and Social Media Editor at AllSides. He has a Center bias.
This piece was edited and reviewed by Emily Allen, News Editor & Bias Analyst (Left), and Olivia Geno, Research & Growth Strategist (Lean Right).
