From today’s paper:

In 2007 and 2008, after locating the massage therapist and conducting extensive interviews and doing other reporting on this case, the Tribune chose not to publish the story. The Tribune held back, in part, because the woman was reluctant to be named in the story.
Also, after those months of investigation, the Tribune was unable to state with confidence what actually happened in the hotel room on that night in 2006. Portland police did not investigate further at that time because the woman declined to meet with them or pursue charges.
In a Dec. 15, 2006, police report, the woman’s lawyer at the time claimed that Gore made “unwanted sexual contact” with her during a massage appointment. The lawyer also contacted Oregon State Police, and notes from that Dec. 15, 2006, conversation – obtained by the Tribune under Oregon public records law – show that the lawyer claimed that Gore attempted to “molest and rape” the woman.
No out-of-court settlement
In letters to the Tribune dated Aug. 6, 2007, and Nov. 21, 2008, Gore’s attorneys strongly denied the charges, calling the story “completely false.”
The 2007 letter from Gore’s lawyers to the Tribune includes this statement from Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider on whether there was an out-of-court legal settlement: “Not only has there not been a settlement, we haven’t been approached about one nor can we imagine any basis for one.”
The 2007 letter also makes note of Gore’s long-lasting marriage – one that three years later is ending in divorce.
“You … are aware that everyone who knows Al and Tipper Gore well can and does attest to the integrity of their 37 year marriage and to his honorable character. Moreover, no allegations remotely resembling the ones made by this lawyer have been made against Mr. Gore by anyone else.”
After the Tribune dropped the story, the woman apparently filed another report with police in 2009 that has become the basis for the Enquirer’s story.

They do make some fair points, except for this one:

The Tribune held back, in part, because the woman was reluctant to be named in the story.

We’re to believe the paper wouldn’t grant anonymity to the alleged victim of a sexual assault?