Saturday's Chicago Tribune includes a front page story titled, "The Bill they can't stomach: Voting Clinton's boyhood home a historic site too much for these 12 angry lawmakers." The article, written by senior correspondent William Neikirk, doesn't support the headline.
Yes, twelve Republican congressmen did vote against a bill, which passed with 409 votes, to name the former president's birthplace a national historic site. But characterizing them as "angry" isn't justified, at least not by anything appearing in the article. The closest thing to "angry" was a comment made by one opponent of the Clinton site that, "Maybe it should be a landmark. He is only the second president to be impeached." But that ranks pretty far down on the anger scale.
Then the story goes on: "Other Republicans who voted against the designation weren't quite so caustic. Some cited the estimated $1 million annual cost that would have to be paid by taxpayers. Others objected to Clinton's contact with a company based in the United Arab Emirates in its controversial bid to take over the management of six U.S. ports."
I wonder if imputing anger to the dozen Republicans is a way of balancing recent suggestions that Democratic presidential front runner Hillary Clinton exudes substantial anger. But she's contributed to that sense, telling an audience of women the other day that "there are lots of things that we should be angry and outraged about."
In the meantime, Tribune editors should read their articles to make certain that headlines reflect story content.
