I concur with Joe Schmidt’s excellent letter accusing the Tribune-Review and Associated Press of unprofessional attacks on Sen. Doug (“Hit piece on Mastriano yellow journalism,” June 15, TribLIVE).
I cannot understand why anyone in the media, especially a Western Pennsylvania newspaper, would not only be shocked, but legitimately impressed by Mastriano’s victory for the Republican nomination for governor against some very respectable opponents with excellent backing and credentials. Nonetheless, Mastriano came out on top with an impressive 48% of the vote without support from big monied contributors and very little positive support from most media outlets.
He was mainly characterized by the media as a “far-right candidate.” Is this because he supports the Second Amendment, he’s a pro-life candidate and Christian, or because he believes strongly in a legitimate photo ID to vote? I think many Americans support these principles. Is it because he is challenging the validity of the Pennsylvania vote for president in 2020?
Just because he organized buses and attended President Trump’s “Stop the Steal Rally” on Jan. 6, AP articles in May insinuated he participated in the riot, when he and his wife left immediately upon learning of the disturbance at the Capitol.
Apparently, many Pennsylvania voters must have similar concerns. Mastriano won because he had significant grassroots support though his donors and his unprecedented number of door-to-door campaigners and 29,000 signatures from all 67 counties.
I am hopeful Western Pennsylvania voters will be monitoring and questioning the fairness of the coverage through the upcoming elections.
Michael Contes
New Kensington