I was a news reporter for about fifty years. I'm retired now, but I still believe that when we newsies get something wrong, we should acknowledge it. Which brings me to a story that ran in The Washington Post this past Thursday. The headline read, "Oregon investigated sex accusation against Gore." Well, not exactly. The story goes on to say that a woman, a masseuse, first said that she was sexually assaulted by Gore when he visited the city, but didn't want police to investigate her claim. This was, as I read the story, in 2006. In 2009 she decided she did want an investigation. The detectives concluded after an interview that they lacked enough evidence to proceed with an investigation, the story said. "At this point, the Police Bureau does not consider this an ongoing investigation unless new evidence is received in this case," it said. The Portland Tribune declined to publish a story about the charge, the Post said, in part because of the woman's refusal to be named. The woman subsequently went public and the National Enquirer published her claims last Wednesday. But why? Do we know for sure that anything happened? No. Was there an incident? We don't know. Was there ever a real investigation? Apparently not. Except for the fact that the woman makes the claim, this seems to me an essentially fact-free story. Which raises a question. Why print it?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile