Local editorials by the numbers
As of Wednesday morning, November 2:
Number of consecutive editions of the Wheeling Intelligencer in which they have printed an anti-Clinton editorial: 5
Number of consecutive editions of the Wheeling News-Register in which they have printed an anti-Clinton editorial: 3
Number of new things we have learned about . . .
If you've read them, you can probably skip this post. Here are the shorter versions of three day's worth of anti-Clinton editorials.
The shorter version: you must vote for Bill Cole for governor because Jim Justice is a Democrat and he might support . . .
Covering last night's debate
At 9:30 this morning I turned to Kiosko.net to see how American newspapers were handling last night's debate. (Kiosko prints the front page of major newspapers.) The website usually features some of America's most read newspapers at the top of the page and here are their headlines:
. . .
An anti-Hillary editorial that uses both
Yesterday's Intelligencer editorial, "Reject Clinton Energy Claims," is another in a long line of anti-Clinton editorials and it's use of evidence remains true to Intelligencer form.
Take this paragraph for example:
For many families, the cost of government limits on using coal to . . .
"Fair and balanced" coverage of the health issue
Here are six paragraphs from today's balanced AP story on the candidates' health: the first two paragraphs summarize their health, the next two describe Trump's "swipe" at Clinton for her brief absence, and the last two feature Clinton's . . .
Yesterday, I commented on the Intelligencer editorial that attacked Hillary Clinton's for her assertion that half of Donald Trump's followers were racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and Islamophobic ("deplorables"). The paper's defense was that she was attacking them because they disagreed with her; Trump's own . . .
Ignore the science, the man is out to get us!
On March 16 of this year, I wrote:
I've been doing this blog for over two years and one of the constants has been the Intelligencer's and the News-Register's refusal to acknowledge that President Obama has ever acted for what he believes is the best interest of the country; that, at the least, his actions might be . . .