The biggest story on this morning's front page proclaimed:

Hillary & Trump Turn Up Muslim Rhetoric

The original AP article came in at 1000 words of which 400 words were dropped for the Intelligencer version -- most of what was deleted coming at the end of the article. However, the Intelligencer did cut 75 words from a paragraph about Harry Reid in the middle of the AP article. Here the original AP article was balancing Republicans McConnell's and Ryan's rhetoric with Democrat Reid's point-of-view (the dropped paragraphs are in bold):

McConnell praised Capt. Khan as an "American hero," while Ryan noted that many Muslim Americans have served "valiantly" in the U.S. military.

"Captain Khan was one such brave example. His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan — should always be honored. Period," Ryan said.

Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic minority leader, issued a blistering statement of his own, saying anything short of revoking their endorsements of Trump was "cowardice" on the part of McConnell and Ryan.

"This shouldn't be hard," Reid said. "Donald Trump is a sexist and racist man who insults Gold Star parents, stokes fear of Muslims and sows hatred of Latinos. He should not be president and Republican leaders have a moral responsibility to say so."

On a post-convention bus tour through Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton said Trump has a "total misunderstanding" of American values and has inflamed divisions in American society.

Switching from the front page to the editorial page brings up an important question: how far must Trump go before the Wheeling "newspapers" condemn his words editorially? Note that there have been no editorials about this attack, Trump's McCain-POW quote, his sexist quotes, or his questioning of the loyalty of the American-born judge in the Trump Academy case. Imagine for a moment had Clinton made just one of these comments -- we'd be reading it almost as much as her "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" quote.

My hunch is that we'll eventually see a negative comment about Trump in a "both-sides-do-it"/false equivalency editorial. Earlier this year, the Intelligencer tried something similar in a "Democrats are the real women-haters" editorial (without mentioning Trump's name) in which they lied about Obama and the Democrats from start to finish. If we ever do see criticism of Trump, it will be in an editorial that will be at least as negative toward Clinton.