Well, this guy's name is mud. But now it seems that there was nothing inappropriate happening after all.

Is there a better way to have handled this?

"OKLAHOMA CITY -- Oklahoma City police clear a former substitute teacher who was suspected of inappropriate touching.

Loyd E. Pribble, former full-time elementary school and substitute teacher, was removed from the district's register March 6 after two police investigations based on allegations he inappropriately touched children.

Detectives said yesterday they followed up on the reports at Hawthorne Elementary by parents concerned that he hugged and patted students. Nine girls were interviewed.

Detective Tony Foreman said investigators didn't find anything that rose to a criminal act.
According to police, similar complaints were lodged last year at Eugene Fields Elementary.
Oklahoma City School district spokeswoman Tierney Cook said the district erred on the side of caution.

Pribble said he's always held himself to a high standard as a teacher and has loved all of the children he's taught.

He says he doesn't plan to return to teaching."

Thank goodness the Oklahoman decided to run the story before all of the facts were out. This shouldn't have been reported at all.

Thank goodness the Oklahoman decided to run the story before all of the facts were out. This shouldn't have been reported at all.

Yeah right. And then if they hadn't ran the story and he was found to be guilty then the public would be pointing their finger at the media for not reporting it early enough.

That mentality would mean we shouldn't report on anyone accused of a crime until/unless they are convicted. You realize that could be 1-5 years later. Also, reporting the alleged crime helps to bring forward unknown witnesses and/or victims.

If stinks but overall its a good system.

Meh... when you're reporting on a story where the only evidence is something as ambiguous as it is in this case, not to mention career-ending, even if untrue, you just don't do it.

I agree with Midtowner. The media often will report before knowing what actually happened in a situation, or will so sensationalize and missrepresent the story that it in no way accurately tells what happened. If anyone here has ever read Airframe, the reporter in that story is a perfect example of how the media works. They want to scare people to get ratings, whether it's true or not. And guess what, you can't get resolution if they missrepresent you either. Unfortunately the law doesn't work in favor of those that the media unfairly bullies.

I've been beaten up many times in the media when the facts were far from accurately reported and I still avidly support their right to report "the news of the moment."

I don't know where you can draw a line and identify when the media has all the facts.

That said, I've seen plenty of behind the scenes to convince me despite what journalism classes try and instill and the media proclaims, there is definitely a bias in reporting and corporate influence of the media owner(s) often trumps ethics.