In response to the Tribune-Review's tilt on the upcoming Pittsburgh mayoral race favoring Jack Wagner: The article by Mike Wereschagin titled “Pittsburgh mayoral candidate Wagner faults current administration, says council shares some of blame” (April 17 and TribLIVE.com) does just that. The article distorts Bill Peduto's record as a city councilman.
While searching through the Tribune-Review's own archives, I found no less than 95 news articles dating back to 2006 supporting Peduto's criticism of Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. Peduto's opposition is well documented.
Previous articles written by the Trib point to this. Jeremy Boren's report “Votes show Dems' clash” (Jan. 29, 2007, and TribLIVE.com) and Joseph Sabino Mistick's “Good government” (July 13, 2008, and TribLIVE.com) sum up how Peduto has differed from Ravenstahl from the onset and how Pittsburgh has a strong-mayor form of government that has ensured division of the council for decades.
Bill Peduto is a staunch proponent of changing city hall and updating to reflect 21st-century technology. His voting record is one of fiscal responsibility, government reform and social tolerance.
I am surprised with the reporting that allows stand-alone statements to be printed without any follow-up research. If Wereschagin's article were a pinball machine, there would be flashing lights and “game over” on the first ball.
Shawn W. Foyle
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.
- Positive & healthy ...
- Hiring in Westmoreland I
- Thanks for the coverage
- Sticker shock
- More answers, please
- Blame judges
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- Hiring in Westmoreland II
- Russia, not Rice
- Atheists & religious expression
- Ferguson & contradictions