Media reports regarding "crack babies" were criticized for lacking what kind of basis?

Media reports concerning "crack babies" faced substantial criticism for lacking an empirically-based foundation. This means that the claims made in these reports were not sufficiently supported by rigorous scientific research or credible data.

Empirical studies involve systematic investigation through observation and experimentation, yielding reliable results that can be replicated. In the case of "crack babies," sensationalized narratives often emerged without grounding in well-designed studies, leading to misconceptions and stigmatization surrounding children exposed to crack cocaine in utero. Critics pointed out that these narratives frequently exaggerated risks and did not adequately account for a variety of factors, such as socioeconomic status, environmental influences, and the complexities of addiction in families.

The absence of robust empirical evidence undermines the validity of claims and can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, highlighting the importance of relying on data-driven research to inform public perceptions and policy decisions regarding substance use and its impacts.