Recent jabs at the Post-Gazette -- the swipe at substandard coverage of North Shore Uglitheater developments, the she-likes-pancakes snideness, the recurring and snarky Google-compatible Intertubes apparatus angle, the exasperation concerning disregard of the obvious hack-a-thon issues -- might cause a reader to conclude that (or, at least, wonder whether) I hold the P-G in especially low esteem, or that I find less fault with the Tribune-Review.
I like the Post-Gazette. I believe it often tries to find and report worthwhile news, including difficult stories. (For example, word wafting from Grant Street is that city officials -- in conjunction, for reasons not readily apparent, with county officials --have been fretting for weeks about a formal records request concerning the financial issues associated with Iron City Brewing, the water authority and squandered public subsidies, and most versions identify the P-G as the requestor).
The P-G often fights for access to public documents and proceedings, vindicates open meeting laws, and challenges the powerful. (Not always, however. It appears to have a few blind spots.)
The P-G has invested and participated in stories it covers. It periodically veers into bizarre territory, for reasons only the publisher (or a brave insider) might explain.
But, in a declining region and a challenging financial environment for journalism, the Post-Gazette provides Pittsburgh with a genuine newspaper. I note the P-G's faults because I believe the P-G might try to improve and might succeed.
Why not devote similar scrutiny to the Tribune-Review? Why do parents respond one way when their straight-A, never-arrested, hard-working, charity-volunteering child brings home an uncharacteristically low grade, and differently when the neighbors' paroled, addicted dropout gets arrested again, this time for a felony? Differing expectations, differing levels of concern.
Analyst: Ravenstahl loomed over race
2 hours ago