I read the main story in Thursday’s Free Lance and I am quite
disturbed. How can a story that is so damaging (and there is no
doubt all are damaged) to the primary professional organization of
the county (San Benito Bank), the primary charitable organization
of the county (Red Cross) and an upstanding citizen (Mr. McLennan)
be published
”
above the fold
”
when it is still in the
”
did not
”
”
did so
”
stage, unsubstantiated by law enforcement and so vehemently
denied by the accused?
I read the main story in Thursday’s Free Lance and I am quite disturbed. How can a story that is so damaging (and there is no doubt all are damaged) to the primary professional organization of the county (San Benito Bank), the primary charitable organization of the county (Red Cross) and an upstanding citizen (Mr. McLennan) be published “above the fold” when it is still in the “did not” “did so” stage, unsubstantiated by law enforcement and so vehemently denied by the accused?
The costs to the accuser of the action being thrown aside by the courts are nothing – to the accused, their reputations are damaged forever.
I have never met anyone mentioned in the article, so I cannot say I believe the word of one side over the other. However, common sense would lead one to question whether a professional man would throw aside everything he has worked for all his life – career, family and name – to grope a 66-year-old woman in the middle of a crowded room.
Accusations are easily made when proof is not needed and the Free Lance needed to ask this question, as well as listen to the accuser, then exercise some discretion before it is all in boldfaced print for all to see. A bell cannot be un-tolled.
One of the things that established America as a truly advanced society is equal access by all to the courts. Earlier nation states had their rulers decide which citizens had the ability to have their grievances heard, with the rabble having to fend for themselves.
Anybody in the U.S. can bring suit against anybody in the world for any reason and the courts will give him or her a fair hearing. The mere fact that someone exercises his or her rights to bring an action does not, in itself, make that action news worthy, particularly not of such notable station as found in the Free Lance.
Our community would be much better served if the facts of such a potentially devastating case be first investigated and substantiated by the law enforcement and legal authorities than to be first put where they can never be retracted. To do otherwise denigrates another foundation of our unique republic – freedom of the press.
Graham J. Wright,
Hollister
