Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
Lance: To Bill Peduto. The Democrat Pittsburgh mayoral hopeful has chosen to go negative with his second TV campaign commercial, slapping fellow Democrat and race leader Jack Wagner. Worse, the ad totally misrepresents the content of several Trib stories, either used as a visual that has nothing to do with the commercial's narration or erroneously cited to support several points. That's what “leaders” don't do.
Lance: To the Peduto campaign. It raises the art of campaign weasel-wording to new heights in defending the ad's gross misrepresentations. That's what bush-league campaigns do. And it can only make us wonder if such campaign dishonesty would carry over into a Peduto administration. If such warped liberties are taken in a campaign ad, what warped liberties will be taken in the mayor's office?
Lance: To Veterans Affairs. At the very same time that vets were being sickened and dying at Pittsburgh-area VA hospitals because of a failure to properly test and maintain water systems for Legionella bacteria, the top local VA official and her regional director were given bonuses of nearly $13,000 and more than $15,000, respectively. The VA has no shame.
Lance: To the American Lung Association. It continues to slander Greater Pittsburgh as having some of the nation's worst air pollution. That's because it continues to employ a bogus measuring methodology. It would be comical if the scientific malpractice weren't so egregious. (Perhaps VisitPittsburgh could justify its executives' high salaries by suing the association for defamation.)
Show commenting policy
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.
- The Thursday wrap
- The IRS scandal: Do the Lois Lerner emails still exist?
- The ‘Truthy’ project: We are suspect
- The Box
- Questions of transparency: The IGs’ plea
- Merging school districts? Some fundamental criteria