I think the biggest concern I have about this article I have is the manner in which the paper pursued it. The lead seemed so tentative to me, that I don't think I would have pursued the idea of him molesting boys, because it seems so unlikely. Even still, the paper has so little evidence that the mayor did that. This is definitely a case of baiting the mayor, which isn't right.
The argument that this story is about abuse of office is also too thin for me. There are a few instances of the mayor giving internships to people he had online relationships with, but not enough evidence that he is exchanging sexual favors for government positions. Jobs are often rewarded by who you know, especially internships. Again, I think the newspaper was baiting him and pushing him toward favors for jobs.
I am not trying to defend the actions of Jim West, I don't think he is the hero of this story, but for the evidence being so inconclusive and the impact on West being so dramatic, I don't think the paper should have pursued or published this story the way it did.
No comments:
Post a Comment