Media accountability · Commentary · October 22, 2026
Molly Ann Howell · Managing Editor, Gallup Sun
Molly, this is a puff piece. Here’s what you left out.
You published their praise. You never answered the victim.
Molly Ann Howell’s October 16 Gallup Sun article praises officials’ communication with victims. An actual victim had already approached her twice with specific concerns and an offer of primary evidence. Neither approach received a reply in the correspondence reviewed. That is an embarrassing failure of scrutiny from a managing editor writing about whether victims are finally being heard.
On publication day, I was exactly two weeks past the hearing in my case, still without Bernitz’s promised update. My defendant had failed to appear. Your readers received a glowing account of improved leadership. They did not receive this part of the record. By October 22, Bernitz’s promised response still had not arrived—20 days after the hearing.
“I find this coverage disgusting. Reading officials congratulate one another while my evidence-based approaches to your newsroom went unanswered felt like being spat in the face. You had two invitations to examine their treatment of a victim. Where was the scrutiny?”
14days after the hearing still without the promised update As of the article’s publication, October 16
On September 24, Bernitz said he would contact the victim sometime after October 2 to explain what would happen next. He also wrote:
“I will not be responding to any further of your inquires until that time.”
On October 2, Shubham failed to appear. Judge Tina Garcia ordered a no-bond bench warrant. Erika Pirotte appeared for the State; Bernitz himself was absent. By October 16, the victim reports that the promised update had not arrived. No intervening direct email from Bernitz was located in the correspondence reviewed.
October 2 came. October 16 came. Your puff piece arrived. Bernitz’s promised update did not. That is the contrast your readers deserved to see.
Bernitz’s promised response still had not arrived.
By October 22, no response had arrived from John William Bernitz. The victim was still waiting for the explanation of what would happen next that Bernitz promised on September 24, to follow the October 2 hearing.
That is 20 days after the hearing and 28 days after his promise. The October 16 article’s praise was already six days old. The promised update was still missing.
She also relays Maiorano’s praise for Bernitz’s “proactive communication.” The reported purpose of the meetings is to review investigations and plan prosecutions.
Weekly coordination provides a repeated opportunity for these offices to address case problems. Was this case discussed? Were the concerns raised by the victim reviewed? What action followed?
The article does not establish that this case was discussed at any meeting. That is a question for Bernitz and Maiorano to answer.
What is documented is their response to the victim: Maiorano called the investigation sufficient, Bernitz rejected the significance of the missing continued-contact passage, and Bernitz deferred further replies until after the hearing.
Molly, why does one official’s praise for another carry so much weight in your article, while a victim’s offer of evidence never earned a reply? Officials congratulating each other is a claim to investigate. Publishing it does not do that work.
I had already called it out.
Twenty-three days before Howell’s article appeared, I sent this to Bernitz, Maiorano and other MCSO officials:
“Could the MCSO–DA mutual admiration society please produce a single official willing to explain why Bittony’s sworn complaint omits the continued touching documented in his own report, or has your improved coordination merely turned individual failures into a team achievement? Will even one of you do LITERALLY ANYTHING to help me without making me beg you to do your job first?”
That was the question I put to them: what had their improved coordination actually done to address the problem in front of them? Your article praises the relationship without examining this challenge to its results.
03 / The officials’ own words
Put the praise beside the emails.
Sheriff James Maiorano III
After stating that he reviewed Bittony’s report and video, Maiorano called the investigation “sufficient” and wrote:
“no further action can be taken at this time by my Office”
This response predates the September complaint and the later discovery of the omitted passage.
District Attorney John William Bernitz
The original report describes continued contact involving Shubham’s hands and fingers. That passage is absent from the September 10 complaint, while the initial possible-accident explanation remains.
When the victim raised the discrepancy, Bernitz wrote “I am not concerned” and:
“I do not believe that discrepancy is material to the issues involved in your case.”
Before your article, I offered you the evidence. Twice. You never answered.
This was a specific reporting lead, with dates, body-camera timestamps, an official’s written response, and an offer of the underlying records. I asked Howell to examine the evidence independently. I followed up. No reply from Howell was located in the correspondence reviewed.
A newsroom writing about officials listening to victims should be able to explain why its own unanswered approaches from a victim did not warrant a response.
The message supplied body-camera timestamps, described the investigative concerns, quoted Maiorano’s conclusion, and offered the complete footage and supporting records for review.
Read the closing excerpt
“Will you review the evidence? I can provide the complete package immediately.”
Transcribed excerpt from the victim’s sent email to Howell, August 27, 2026. Private sender identifiers are omitted.
A follow-up invitation
Read the follow-up excerpt
“I noticed you recently wrote another article on the Sheriff’s Race. I’m here if you want to chat, Ma’am.”
Transcribed from the victim’s follow-up email to Howell, September 23, 2026.
The favorable article is published
The article discusses Bernitz’s leadership and coordination with Maiorano. It does not address this victim’s case or the concerns previously offered to the newsroom.
I challenged the article and asked to meet.
I sent Howell a detailed response comparing her article with the hearing record and the officials’ correspondence. I asked her to review the evidence and report their answers, and offered to meet in Gallup on October 30 or November 2 with the underlying records.
Molly, Bernitz is responsible for the promises he made. Maiorano is responsible for the conclusions he reached. You are responsible for the account you put before your readers.
Your article gives officials room to describe their progress and praise their working relationship. It gives readers no examination of the case concerns I had already offered you. What reporting did you do to test that reassuring picture against a victim’s experience?
To me, the result reads like reputation management for public officials. Their claims receive favorable treatment; the available challenge to that picture goes unexplored in the article. That is why I call it a puff piece, and why I consider it a serious journalistic failure.
Voters deserve the truth before they cast their ballots.
Accurate, truthful reporting is of the utmost importance before an election. People are deciding whom to trust with public power, their safety and their access to justice. A managing editor owes them serious scrutiny of officials’ claims. The unanswered questions about Maiorano’s review do not disappear because he has something flattering to say about the district attorney.
I spelled out the election stakes in the August 27 email I sent you: “I want voters to see the evidence before they vote.” I also wrote: “That opportunity disappears if the story comes out after the ballots are already cast.” The timing was part of the pitch itself. Your October 16 article gave readers the officials’ praise without examining the concerns I had offered your newsroom.
Test the claims. Examine the records. Put the discrepancies to the officials. Publish their answers while people can still use them. In my view, giving officials this flattering coverage while leaving a victim’s offered evidence unexplored is a disgraceful failure of journalism. It fails the victim who came forward and the readers who depend on you to scrutinize people in power.
The officials got a platform. The victim got silence. Your readers deserved a harder look.
06 / Questions for Molly Ann Howell
Molly, answer for your own coverage.
Why did you leave both the August 27 pitch and September 23 follow-up unanswered?
Did you review the offered evidence before publishing this article? If so, what did you examine, and why did none of these concerns appear?
Did you ask Bernitz about his promised post-hearing update or Maiorano about his response to this victim? What answers did they give?
What did you independently verify about improved victim communication? Which victims’ experiences did you use to test the officials’ claims?
Will you now examine the records, put the documented discrepancies to both officials, and publish their answers with the same visibility you gave their praise?
Molly, I gave you a chance to examine the record before you published their victory lap. Twice. Your article leaves readers with the praise and without this victim’s experience of the same officials. I consider that a disgraceful failure of scrutiny. I am still waiting for you to explain it—and to do the reporting these records deserve.
— Commentary from the reporting victim
Read the sources. Judge the contrast.
This page distinguishes quotations, dated correspondence, the hearing record, the victim’s account, and editorial criticism. The email dates and excerpts were checked against the correspondence on October 22, 2026. The October 2 outcome describes that hearing; it is not a live warrant-status report.
Howell, Bernitz and Maiorano may submit a response or identify a factual error through the project’s contact page. Any substantive response received can be dated and linked alongside this account.