Why the Argus Leader is Most Derelict in Hildygate
The South Dakota Moderate raises the question: why is the Argus Leader catching the most heat for the absence of reporting on the alleged theft of monies from Hildebrand Tewes.
It's a valid question, but I believe I know why (at least why I think so).
Many of the points SDM brings up are valid for consideration.
However, many news outlets name names without criminal charges actually being filed, the Dan Sutton affair being one of those. So while I understand the need and reason for restraint, it's not at all without precedent to name a suspect before the suspect has actually been charged. Especially when the victim is naming the alleged perpetrator.
Also I believe the Argus Leader, as the state's largest newspaper, has the primary obligation to go after the story.
The Argus Leader is also the hometown newspaper where this incident occurred.
The Argus Leader is also about six blocks or 6/10 of a mile from Hildebrand Tewes--yet Roll Call, over 1000 miles away, has given us more information in the last week than the Argus Leader has.
Another consideration: if no criminal charges have been filed, why not? If Hildebrand Tewes is naming names, I would expect charges to be filed. Or at least an investigation underway? If these are not happening, then the absence of those activities is a story the Argus should be investigating and reporting on, at the very least.
When you couple all these factors together with the multitude of past incidents of blatant bias on the part of the Argus, I think the charges of burying the story are very well founded. That may not be the case, but I think such a possibility would do more than just cross the mind of a reasonable person who weighed all the evidence.
UPDATE: See this Rapid City Journal story for new details.