I was frustrated to see the feckless headline writing and reporting in the article headlined “Trump praises Guilford workers, jabs at Mills in visit that draws supporters, protesters” (June 5).

Starting the headline with “Trump praises Guilford workers, jabs at Mills …” draws unnecessary parallels between Maine as positive and Mills as negative – a call to attention for President Trump’s supporters, the headline skimmers and contextless readers. Imagine the assumptions you’re allowing these audiences,. i.e., that Maine is as “good” as Gov. Mills is “bad.”

The piece cited over 10 instances of pro-Trump support, and roughly half that in regard to dissent – including support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

Gov. Mills’ pushback on Trump’s disrespectful rhetoric was framed negatively, as he called for “domination” in the streets, and use of military engagement to suppress protests. This context was omitted from the framing of Mills’ warranted “blistering response.”

Trump’s mention of COVID-19 testing wins and job numbers is detailed – without, once again, adding the context of economic hardship in Maine thanks to his administration’s unpreparedness. Trump is quoted comparing Mills to a “dictator,” without mentioning that the “dictatorial” measures taken were to protect Mainers from further distress.

The article, published in the midst of the Black Lives Matter protests, pushed the topic to the end, despite President Trump’s divisive opinions regarding the protests. This is integral to the piece’s timeliness – not a footnote. It is at best lazy, and at worst, dangerously neglectful to omit framing the significant cultural moment in which we find ourselves.

Emily Ambrose

Portland