Couldn't he be a weasel and an idiot???
:-)
Regardless of how it started, I have long believed someone or something has pushed this case to where it is today.
"What is the responsibility of a journalist if their erroneous reporting has villified an innocent, or placed their life in jeopardy--are they obligated to try and correct their error?"
A totally corrupt city with a lot of secrets.
You may be right - it may have come from someone or something beyong Liefong, but..remember..the simplest explanation is more often the most accurate. In this case, when we look at all the facts we know so far, and there are a lot - enough to form some conclusions - and we ask "Quo bono?", the answer is Liefong. Liefong benefits, or he did, anyway, in a manner expedient for his needs at the time which was to win a plurality of one-party votes in the primary. Remember, at the time, there was no candidate from an opposing party against which he had to mount a campaign so a win then, was a final win assuring him of keeping office, or so he thought then.