This is going to take a bit of work to unravel. Over at The Atlantic, they published a lengthy account of a young daughter who contracted the measles and ultimately perished from the affliction. The piece was written by Elizabeth Bruenig, written in the second person format, and gives a detailed rendition of what was experienced.
It opens with details of a children’s birthday party, attended by the mother with her 5-year old daughter and infant son, and evolves to the daughter becoming ill and ultimately perishing. The problems emerged when questions were asked about what had actually occurred. A number of people in media circles were struck by the content, with some concerned that Bruenig went through this ghastly experience of losing a child some time ago without their realizing her trauma.
You thought your unvaccinated daughter had a cold. It could be a week before she’s diagnosed with measles. By then, the virus “has multiplied and descended upon her lungs, kidneys, tonsils, and spleen, down to the marrow of her bones.” Elizabeth Bruenig writes about how a child… pic.twitter.com/fTZMHGLbUq
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) February 13, 2026
But then others noted a curious note at the end of this gripping feature. This becomes a bizarre exploration of a significant feature article at a major media outlet that is not entirely clear about its veracity.
As more people looked into the details, it was revealed that this was a creative endeavor, but one that the outlet itself was not only less than forthcoming about — indeed, there are indications that The Atlantic might not have been fully aware of what had been published.
Laura Hazard Owen, covering this entry from Bruenig at Neiman Lab, explains the process of discovery that many went through when discovering this piece. She was among those who were deeply impacted by the grave report, but she became confused when she came to the end and found this editor’s note as the coda:
This story is based on extensive reporting and interviews with physicians, including those who have cared directly for patients with measles.
This is where things really veer into the realm of questionable tactics by The Atlantic. Owen says that she spoke to a couple of others in the press industry who had received advanced promotional copies of this article from the outlet, and those did not carry the disclaimer. One of the journalists reached out to The Atlantic to clarify if this was a true report or a work of fiction. The response they received said: “This is based on a mother’s real account. Thanks for checking.”
To +1 @laurahazardowen
I’ve also seen PDF of Atlantic piece on measles as first posted.
a/ Originally it had no editor’s note
b/ PR rep initially told reporter (in note I’ve seen) “this is based on a mother’s real account.”
If Atlantic was confused, why wouldn’t readers be? https://t.co/oWFlaktBWe
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) February 19, 2026
Except that the disclaimer does not make that distinction, it declares the piece was based on speaking with several physicians. So, at this stage, The Atlantic is giving conflicting accounts, that it was centered on actual experiences by a mother, and then that a composite was drawn up by speaking with doctors. This sounds like the outlet itself was not entirely clear what it had on its hands, and it was only after these inquiries that the editor’s note was added.
Owen reached out to Bruenig directly to speak to her about the feature and the process of crafting it. She asked the writer how she would classify this work, and the euphemistic label given is a marvel.
“It is a hypothetical account of a very real phenomenon based on careful reporting. I would place it somewhere on the creative nonfiction spectrum.”
I’m sorry, but it might be difficult to come up with a more contradictory description than “creative nonfiction.” Pre-fab proof? Fabricated veracity?
In answering another question, Bruenig describes working closely with editors on the format, but this claim appears to contradict the initial reactions from the site. Seemingly, the editing team from her division (the article appears under the section IDEAS, which might itself be a tipoff of the creative aspects) did not alert others to what is a rather important detail, that they spun a feature article as a work of fiction.
Bruenig also stated that they decided to add the disclaimer to alleviate confusion, yet it clearly did no such thing. As Owen noted, the response “suggests that within The Atlantic, there was confusion about whether the piece was fictional.” If the site was unclear about the very content of its published piece, what does that indicate about how it would be interpreted by the readers?
The Atlantic fumbled this process when it was involved in making a piece of work that demands more clarity. Instead, there was minimal effort to distinguish a creative work, and even the ultimate clarification given was nebulous enough in nature to cause questions. For a major outlet to lapse in this nature is a deeply revealing reality.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
