Sunday, March 21, 2010
WAITING AT THE FINISH LINE
At this moment, on the hard drives of at least a few editorial writers around the state, there reside two versions of an editorial.
According to one version, Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's case against Mike Veon and company was weak, his witnesses not credible, the evidence thin. Boo!
According to the other, Corbett's case was airtight, his witnesses steadfast and true, the evidence overwhelming. Yay!
The case is over, of course, and the jury continues to deliberate. Anyone who paid attention to the six-week trial has long since drawn conclusions about the worthiness of Corbett's case. What will determine which version of the editorial sees the light of day is not the worthiness of the case, but the verdict.
We doubt there is an editorial writer in the state who is willing to call the case weak if the jury convicts on most charges, or vice versa. To be completely honest, we doubt there is an editorial writer in the state who's paid enough attention to the case to have developed an informed opinion, not that that will stop them from opining. The reporters in the courtroom, and those who followed their Twitter feeds, have a pretty good idea of what transpired. But "mainstream" media coverage has been shallow, cursory and scant.
Our prediction: rather than offer readers a useful analysis of how candidate Corbett has spent millions of taxpayer dollars and countless state worker man-hours over the last three years, editorial boards will treat the case as they treat most complex subjects - like a horse race.