Share This Page

Tribune-Review staffers take home 4 Clarion Awards

| Saturday, Aug. 2, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Tribune-Review staffers won four awards in a media competition that drew entries from 23 states and three countries.

In the contest sponsored by the Association for Women in Communication, Clarion Awards went to political writer Salena Zito for her opinion section columns; columnist Nafari Vanaski in the non-opinion/informative column category; reporters Luis Fábregas, Mike Wereschagin and Adam Smeltz, for their investigation of a deadly outbreak of Legionnaires' disease at a Pittsburgh Veterans Affairs hospital; and Randy Bish for a selection of editorial cartoons.

The Trib's four awards were more than those won by any other news organization. Other news category winners included USA Today, Philadelphia Daily News, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters and the Washington Post. The group presented 92 awards to newspapers, magazines, online services, television broadcasters and other communication agencies.

This is the second year in a row Zito has won a Clarion for opinion column writing and her third overall; she won in 2011 as well.

Vanaski's columns appear on Thursdays on the cover of the City&Region section and address a variety of topics, including family issues, race and local politics.

The investigation of the Legionnaires' outbreak revealed that the VA failed to follow procedures that could have prevented the spread of the disease, that officials received thousands of dollars in performance bonuses despite the outbreak and that shoddy care contributed to at least 21 deaths in VA hospitals across the country.

Bish's editorial cartoons appear six times a week on the opinion page. He won a Clarion in 2012.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.