Paul Thomas: Media must remember that mud always sticks

Al Gore. Photo / Dean Purcell

The presumption of innocence is not merely the bedrock of our legal system, it's also central to our core belief of fairness, the principle that everyone's entitled to a fair go.

It's of concern therefore that one of the most powerful forces in contemporary society - the mass media - seem increasingly indifferent to the Roman principle that the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.

This week the Dominion Post ran a story, sourced from the UK Sunday Times, about an allegation of sexual assault levelled at former US Vice-President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore.

The Dom Post's headline was "From top dog to 'crazed sex poodle'." The sub-heading stated that "tales of Al Gore's antics in an Oregon massage parlour are damaging his mystique".

It's worth pointing out that only one person is telling a tale, and the alleged antics took place not in a massage parlour - a frequently employed euphemism for brothel - but in Gore's suite at Portland's Hotel Lucia.

According to the reporters, the accusation "has assured the former Vice-President of a torrid bout of tabloid scrutiny that seems certain to leave a permanent stain".

The incident occurred in October 2006. Two months later a lawyer acting for the complainant, a therapist employed by the hotel, contacted the police alleging "unwanted sexual contact". The police made three appointments to interview the woman which she cancelled. The lawyer then informed police that they would pursue the matter civilly. On the basis that the woman had refused to cooperate or even report a crime, the police closed the case.

In January 2009 the woman approached the police and made a statement accusing Gore of groping and propositioning her. She wasn't sure how to categorise what took place, but was vividly specific about Gore, calling him a "crazed sex poodle". The police concluded there was insufficient evidence to take the matter further.

Several weeks ago the woman asked police for a copy of her statement. She then approached the muck-raking supermarket tabloid National Enquirer seeking $1.5 million for her story, but seems to have made a spectacular hash of the negotiations. The Enquirer ran a story heavily based on her statement but without, it insists, paying her a cent, and without giving Gore the opportunity to respond for fear of jeopardising its scoop.

A spokesperson for Gore, whose 40-year marriage broke up last month, subsequently acknowledged that he had a massage on the day and in the place in question, denied the allegations, and welcomed the Portland Police Bureau's decision late this week to reopen the investigation.

Perhaps feeling that her "poodle" call was too abstract to cause the required outrage, Gore's accuser now describes him as a "sick man" and "sexual predator" and declares that she wants "justice served".

It would be understandable if she was reluctant to formally accuse a rich and powerful married man of sexual assault for fear that she'd be savaged both in and outside the courtroom.

And the fact that she sensed a commercial opportunity doesn't in and of itself have any bearing on the validity of her story. Furthermore, the reality that sex crimes often come down to he said/she said is one of the main reasons why so many men get away with it.

Yet the fact remains her behaviour has been equivocal and Gore's guilt hasn't even begun to be established, which is why this sentence in the Sunday Times story is so worrying: "Whatever the truth of the strange and depressing encounter, Gore's mystique as a moral beacon in a worried world has suffered a wounding blow."

Whatever the truth? So the truth is neither here nor there: Gore's moral stature has shrunk even if the accusation turns out to be utterly false?

And if journalists are aware that mud sticks and a single accusation can besmirch a reputation built up over decades, shouldn't they feel a responsibility to go at least some way towards establishing the truth, instead of simply ushering untested allegations into the public arena accompanied by pompous commentary which lends them a sheen of authenticity?

Finally, isn't the fourth estate supposed to have a commitment to the truth? Isn't that why we set such store on freedom of the press?

The Enquirer is apparently off pursuing further allegations, so Gore may yet turn out to be the sort of man his accuser says he is. Former All Black Robin Brooke is also under the blowtorch; the difference is that his recent admitted misconduct compels the media to examine and air accusations of far worse behaviour 13 years ago. But one right doesn't excuse a wrong.