News-Leader Editor Says Paper Is Unable to Verify Accusations Against Long, But Apologizes For Removing Reader Comments

David Stoeffler, executive editor of the News-Leader, has a series of interesting posts in the comment section of a story about Scott Eckersley's speeding tickets this afternoon.  Stoeffler writes that he removed comments regarding the letter published earlier this week on The Fuse Joplin from Jennifer Case accusing Billy Long of unbecoming behavior at the Metropolitan Grill in Springfield. 

At the same time, Stoeffler also makes it clear that the paper has been unable to verify the claims made by Case.  Cory deVera "has made extensive inquiries" into the story, he writes. "As a result, we have consciously chosen not to write a story, although we continue to look into it."

Posted at 4:23 this afternoon:

Several commenters on this story earlier today made note of recent allegations against Billy Long related to his behavior in a Springfield restaurant. A woman who said she was a server claims to have heard Long make comments demeaning to women and minorities. Commenters provided a link to an online blog -- http://thefusejoplin.com/ -- which first reported the accusations Sunday, even though the author of the blog noted he was still trying to get confirmation from other sources.

The woman is making her accusations publicly and we interviewed her last week. Our reporter, Cory deVera, has made extensive inquiries and we have yet to find someone who will verify the accusations. One person the woman cited as a witness said that if a particular incident the woman described had happened, he feels certain he would have remembered it, but he could recall nothing like it.

As a result, we have consciously chosen not to write a story, although we continue to look into it.

And posted at 4:24 this afternoon:

Earlier today, while we were considering the proper response to this discussion, I asked to have some comments on this story removed – feeling that if we had deliberately decided not to publish our own story, then it also was not proper to have references on our site to other reports on the topic.

Upon further reflection, I believe that was the wrong decision. Unfortunately, I cannot undo the removal, so I am offering my apologies along with this explanation, and encourage people to repost original comments if they wish.

This is an unusual situation, since we don’t normally disclose information about stories in progress, or stories that we have chosen not to pursue for various reasons.

At this point, unless new information comes to light or circumstances change, we do not believe a story on the allegations is justified.

Finally, at 4:29:

I wanted to be as transparent as possible about the series of decisions involved here, so that readers would understand the evolution of my thinking about letting this unfold online.

As always, your comments are welcome -- and expected.

I honestly don't know what to think about this whole story, but Stoeffler deserves some credit for attempting to explain the editorial decisions.

h/t Busplunge