The Trib has made it clear in its editorials and columns that it has strong concerns about the recent deal made to keep the Penguins in Pittsburgh ("Pucks for brains," by Colin McNickle, March 18 and PghTrib.com).
It has (correctly, in my opinion) equated the deal with other corporate welfare schemes that offer little, if any, benefit to taxpayers, including the deals that financed new stadiums for the Steelers and the Pirates.
It is evident that the Trib considers subsidizing the income of the millionaires who own and play for these teams an improper use of tax revenue and chides government for this extravagant waste.
Yet, to paraphrase Hamlet, the Trib "protests too much, methinks." If Pittsburgh's sports franchises aren't worth as much to the community as the Trib's recent criticisms suggest, why does the Trib expend so much ink and Web site space on these very franchisesâ¢
The Trib's editorial stance concerning the relative unimportance of professional sports when measured against the real needs of the community is wholly in accordance with my own opinion.
As a teenager, I lived and died for "my" teams. As an adult, I now recognize that whether a team wins the Super Bowl or not is as meaningful to my life as the number of craters on the moon.
Yet for a politician, looking for evidence as to where government expenditures should go, is it unreasonable to assume that the local media might provide a legitimate barometer of the city's needs and interests?
And if the Trib believes that local sports and athletics are so worthy of such blanket coverage, then isn't it somewhat disingenuous for the same paper to blame politicians for attaching the same level of importance and concern in the only way they know how?
To what degree is the inflated significance of professional sports in Pittsburgh a product of the Trib's own efforts⢠How responsible are the Trib and other media outlets for these wasteful expenditures?
Andrew N. MewbournHempfield
