78-year-old mayor dukes it out with publisher

Saw this on Foxnews.com and it got my attention ...

I had to find out about the alleged rape ...
Here is a link to that story ... There is no smoking gun.
I'm not sure I would have run it. I can see why the mayor filed the lawsuit.

http://www.gallupindependent.com/2009/06June/061909wasmendoza.html

 

Wow. Thin doesn't begin to describe that.

 

Reviving a 62-year old case? Seems a litte bit of a stretch to bring that story back to life.

 

If I lived in Gallup, I'd let the other guy beat me to death.

 

Wonder if that paper runs a lot of polls.

 

Slow news day. But aren't they all in Gallup?

 

Sounds like the dredged it up twice. In 96 when the guy ran for commission and again recently.

 

Written by a correspondent?

You cannot fault the paper for trying to find the truth, but there is an expiration date on stuff like this, right? Or this is almost like media double jeopardy?

 

You can go back to stuff that relates directly to the story. If a member of a Board of Health lost their medical license, there isn't a time limit on reporting that. The problem with this story is that it seems to only be a revival of an old story with no present consequences. One quote from the story is the most telling thing:

"These are not new allegations."

 

That's what I mean. You can retry a case with new information or evidence, just like to can rewrite the story if something new has been dug up.

But just to reprint it with nothing new? That seems wrong.

 

BOOOOOOOOOOO

 

Ha, just what I was thinking.
The story makes a number of references to court records no longer being available, yet they were reported on in 1996. So did the paper get rid of those notes used for the 1996 story?