Editor, Gettysburg Times,
In Thursday’s July 4 paper, Associated Press reporters Superville and Freking wrote a biased opinionated article before the July 4 Celebration in Washington. They start off with “A reality TV host at heart…” So how do they know? They inserted their own prejudices into the article. They write an article that interviews one supporter and three detractors. The supporter got two inches in 1 column and the detractors got 13 inches in 3 columns. They interviewed one Democrat representative and no Republicans. They slanted their coverage attributing at least five negative references to Trump and no positive ones. They provided more space to possible protesters than to the event itself. They further postulated potential legal issues on the Hatch Act telling the reader twice that Trump strays from his script. Apparently, thinking we are stupid and need to be reminded in the span of a minute.
And part two came on Saturday, July 5 by Superville, Woodward and Berry. Did they apologize for their uneven coverage from the day before? No. And they doubled down on the coverage with no accountability.
Did they admit that Trump did not deviate from the script? They did say that he “largely stuck with his script, avoiding diversions…” Again, did they have a copy? There were two pictures. One from a protester and a smaller one, wide screen hardly depicting anything of note. They devoted 1 inch to what Trump said and 23 inches to negative comments, including one supporter and four detractors. One of which in a Democrat presidential candidate.
Fair? Not hardly. Equal? Not hardly. No accountability for their poor standards. They even lifted paragraphs from their speculation biased notions from the day before which were inaccurate and no longer valid anyway. This was poor journalism at best and not worthy of the ink spilled on them.
I am surprised that these articles got passed our usually circumspect local reviewers. Our local journalists would usually not miss the obvious biases by these authors so devoid of journalistic standards.
I rely on our paper as well as other sources to stay well-informed. While our paper focuses on local and state news, when it selects propaganda on national events, it contributes to readers being misinformed and counters the purpose of a free press—to keep the citizen well-informed so that we can participate to the national discussion.
William D. Hewitt, LTC USA (Ret),