There’s a clear pattern to John R. Leopold’s behavior.
Yes, there are once again questions regarding the county executive’s alleged involvement with women who work for him or in the county government headquarters in Annapolis…. [Link to Commentary]
One Response to “Eric Hartley, “Leopold’s ‘un-denials’ unconvincing,” Capital, May 12, 2009”
© 2009 MyAACPS.net. Powered by Wordpress.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof rests with the accuser, not the accused. In most countries, even today, this is frequently not the case (America being one of the exceptions). It has been a long, tough, historical battle for America to get to this point, if only because demogogues and the less educated public have historically been all too willing to place the burden of proof on the accused. (Eric: I’d suggest you watch the classic movie, 12 Angry Men.)
Yeah, I think we can be pretty sure that Leopold feels uncomfortable about disclosing certain information. But this hardly makes him different than 99.9% of the public, including the Capital’s publishers and the author of this column.
The question is not whether Leopold is withholding information but whether the information he is withholding has a direct bearing on the allegations against him. Here the Capital has simply not done its homework. It is relying on innuendo and that’s not good enough.
It is very appropriate for the Capital to raise the questions that need to be answered. And it would be even more impressive if the Capital were willing to devote the resources to answering some of the questions itself (hooray for investigative journalism!).
But right now both the Capital’s reporting and commentary on this smacks of sensationalism. This is undoubtedly good business (sensationalism is a cheap way to build readership and profits). But it is bad journalism. I’m sympathetic to the Capital’s financial plight, but this is not an appropriate solution.
In the end, the Capital’s hunches may well prove correct. If not, it owes a heartfelt public apology to Leopold. And the Capital won’t get off if it manages merely to embarrass Leopold; it must find evidence that supports the particular allegations it has made.