Case in point: Yesterday. Chelsea Clinton was in Pittsburgh to campaign for her mother on October 14. There were two events, one at the Rivers Club dahn-tahn and the other at Pitt in Oh-glund.
Couple hundred people total at the events, a political speech, Erin McClelland (who's running against Trump partial supporter Keith Rothfus) introduced, blah-blah-blah. Typical late season campaign stuff.
Here's the P-G's Kate Giammarise on the story. It's good solid reporting about the two events and what was said at those events. And except for an early mention of some Clinton/Trump poll numbers (good for Clinton/bad for Trump), it's not until the last paragraph that we hear anything about or from the Trump campaign:
A statement from the Trump campaign, said in part, “Hillary Clinton's last-ditch attempt to make inroads with millennials by parachuting Chelsea into Pennsylvania is falling flat just like her prior visits to the Keystone State. Millennials are not at all Ready for Hillary — we're tired of the same old Washington corruption and pay-to-play deals from career politicians like her and we will vote for change in November.”Compare and contrast that with how Tom Fontaine of the Tribune-Review covers the same two events.
Here's his opening paragraph:
Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton headlined a women's rally in Pittsburgh as accusations of sexual misconduct against Donald Trump mounted, but members of a women's group affiliated with the Trump campaign remain committed to the Republican nominee.Now remember, this is a piece about the two Chelsea Clinton events held in Pittsburgh yesterday. Heck , the headline even says so:
In Pittsburgh, Chelsea Clinton tackles issues she says are important to womenAnd yet Tom Fontaine of the right-swinging Tribune-Review instead immediately starts talking about the local Trump opposition to the Clinton campaign.
Next we get four (out of only ten total, btw) paragraphs of Trump-speak:
“I'm looking at the bigger picture. I'm looking at what is best for this country,” said Joyce Haas of Centre County, co-chair of the Women for Trump Leadership Team that includes representatives statewide.And this is before there's any mention whatsoever of anything that Chelsea Clinton actually said at the two events this article purports to be about.
Haas believes Trump's policies are better for America's future, including women and families.
State Sen. Camera Bartolotta, R-Monongahela, also a member of the Trump women's group, said she was offended by Trump's comments in the recently surfaced video that showed him bragging about groping women. Trump later denied any misconduct. Several women came forward this week with allegations against Trump.
“As a Christian, I have to take him at his word. I just want to stick to the issues,” Bartolotta said, before adding, “I am more appalled at Hillary Clinton's arrogance and entitlement and elitism when it comes to her thinking that she's above the law and rules don't apply to her.”
And Tom, there's no specific mention so I'll have to ask for the sake of clarity: were these two women actually at the two Chelsea Clinton events? If the piece is about the two events then the assumption is that they may have well been, but you don't say specifically so, so I suspect not. And if they weren't at either event how did you get these quotations? Did you call them? Did they call you? Email? Or did they simply wander into your (increasingly de-populating) office to complain about all those cackling Clinton supporters in town?
And why give 40% of a piece about two Clinton events to Trump supporters, anyway? I mean, is this a new thing? Because you certainly didn't do that with this piece about Donald Trump Jr's visit to the Trib offices last month.
Finally: Is this the sort of news reporting we can now expect in the Tribundämmerung?