Troubling Times: Burying the Lead on Sacco

Once again, the Scranton Times has made its loyalties clear.

In an article that reads more like an op-ed disguised as news, the paper has devoted column after column to amplifying Commissioner Bill Gaughan’s latest round of accusations—this time claiming that Commissioner Brenda Sacco and County Solicitor Paul Walker are part of some “scheme” to keep Sacco in office after Tuesday’s special election.

The story leaned heavily on Gaughan’s talking points. He called the routine request for judicial clarification “absurd” and “an attempt to subvert an election,” language the Times highlighted prominently. But what the Times buried near the very end of the article—long after Gaughan’s soundbites and speculation—is that Sacco publicly, and unequivocally, stated she would accept the results of the election.

“There is a lot of concern regarding whether I will honor the lawful result of this special election — of course, I will,” Sacco wrote on social media. “These last few weeks have been a whirlwind. I’m here to serve as Commissioner for however long that turns out to be. The work is meaningful and hard. And I love it.”

That statement, made before the Times article ran, should have been the lead. It directly dismantles Gaughan’s claim that she “refused to answer a simple question” about whether she would step down. The question wasn’t ignored—it was answered. The paper just decided to downplay it.

The Times also gave limited space to the facts: that the letter in question—sent by Walker and Election Board Solicitor Donald Frederickson—simply sought clarification from President Judge James Gibbons about how the election board should be composed, since none of the sitting commissioners are on the ballot. Gibbons responded that his order “says what it says,” effectively ending the matter.

That should have been the end of the story. Instead, the Times spun it into another episode of political theater, framing a procedural letter as a plot and elevating Gaughan’s rhetoric to the level of breaking news.

The irony is that Sacco has been the one consistent voice promising to abide by the law and respect the process. Gaughan, meanwhile, has spent the better part of a year contesting legal rulings, attacking colleagues, and dragging county government through public dysfunction. Yet it’s his version of events that continues to drive the Times’ coverage.

In a functioning press environment, the focus would be on the facts, not the noise. But in Scranton, too often the noise makes the front page.

These are, indeed, troubling times.