Hold onto your butts. Wendy Bell just sued Hearst for RACIAL. DISCRIMINATION.

Yesterday, former WTAE news anchor and current melodramatic cult of personality blogger Wendy Bell filed a federal lawsuit — stop screaming; I’m not done yet — filed a federal lawsuit against the station, claiming racial discrimination was the reason she was fired for the racially inflammatory grenade she dropped on her Facebook page earlier this year.

Basically, she is claiming she was fired for being white.

Actually, that is exactly what she is claiming. Because it says so in the lawsuit:

“Had Ms. Bell written the same comments about white criminal suspects or had her race not have been white, Defendant would not have fired her, much less disciplined her.”

Now you can scream. Because the woman who was fired for racism is suing her employer for racially discriminating her because she is white.

The irony is practically choking me, Alanis.

Those of you who began shouting about the first amendment the moment Bell’s firing was announced should realize something CRUCIAL here. I mean really, truly read this sentence: Wendy Bell is not suing claiming her first amendment rights were violated because Wendy Bell’s lawyer knows her first amendment rights were not violated. If you still wish to shout about Wendy Bell’s first amendment rights, I’m going to have to ask you to leave, read the ACTUAL first amendment and then never come back again because WHY IS YOUR AVATAR AN EAGLE IN FRONT OF AN AMERICAN FLAG BACKDROP HASHTAG TRUMP 2016 IF DON’T YOU ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF OUR CONSTITUTION?

Knowing her first amendment rights were still fully intact, Bell and her lawyers had to come at this money-grab from another angle and that angle is the very laughable racial discrimination angle.

I’m going to briefly address two aspects of this lawsuit from a casual observer’s/uppity heartless wench’s perspective, and then I’m going to drop some very severe truth bombs on Wendy Bell from a perspective unique to me, her, and only a handful of others.

First, let’s talk about her being white. She claims if she was talking about her own race, she wouldn’t have been fired. If she had been black, she says, she would still have her job. Ergo, if she was white and talking about whites, she would still have her job.

Let’s look at that.

Let’s imagine for a moment that a masked gunman stormed a movie theater or a church in the Pittsburgh area, murdered a dozen people and escaped.  Let’s imagine Wendy Bell wrote a Facebook post about the incident saying, We all know who did it. It is going to be a young white man, probably from Fayette County, in his early twenties with absentee trailer parents who ignored his mental issues for years, and who irresponsibly allowed him easy access to their plethora of guns. I am devastated by all the young white men shooting up schools and churches and movie theaters! But today I went to Starbucks and there was a young white man busting his butt to craft my triple shot extra-hot venti decaf non-fat extra-whip low-foam caramel macchiato … I made eye contact with him; this white man is going to MAKE IT.

She would have been fired because do you see at all where a JOURNALIST should never ever write such things on a station-branded Facebook page, forcing her employer to take action because she offended a huge chunk of their viewers and refused to apologize or remove the post initially and instead just edited out the references to race? Do you see where a journalist making such projections based on race simply because some statistics might indicate which race is most likely to commit that sort of crime is THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT A JOURNALIST SHOULD DO REGARDLESS OF THE RACE SHE IS OR THE RACE SHE IS WRITING ABOUT?

So yeah, you “WENDY BELL WAS RIGHT!” peeps can exit this post as well. As the great Vincent Gambino would say, I got no more use for you.

The second thing I would like to address is Wendy Bell’s use of Guy Junker and Andrew Stockey in her lawsuit.

For example, Defendant’s African American Sports Director, and 5 p.m. news anchor, Andrew Stockey was not disciplined at all for making lewd comments to interns, conduct that resulted in the termination of Defendant’s internship program in its news department.

Another reporter, Guy Junker, was arrested for propositioning an undercover police officer, an arrest that caused significant undue publicity, and was “inconsistent with [Defendant’s] ethics.” Defendant did not even discipline Junker, much less fire him.

Wendy Bell is attempting to draw comparisons between Guy’s and Andrew’s PERSONAL disciplinary issues, and her OFFENDING A HUGE SWATH OF VIEWERS WITH HER UNDERHANDED RACISM. This isn’t apples and oranges; this is unicorns and pickles.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, when Guy Junker was arrested for solicitation of a prostitute, HE DIDN’T EVEN WORK FOR WTAE. At the time, he worked for WPXI and Fox Sports Pittsburgh (which would become Root Sports), and those stations were never owned by Hearst. Go to hell, Wendy Bell’s lawyer, for not doing your homework.

As for Andrew Stockey, regardless of the veracity of her claims, Bell didn’t just throw him under the bus; she tossed him under the bus, ran the bus down, boarded the bus Keanu Reeves style, throat-punched the driver, pulled him from his seat, sat down behind the wheel, threw the bus in reverse and ran Andrew over again and again until he was as nonexistent as her own ethical standards.

She is disgusting and will drag anyone she can down with her even if it means comparing unicorns to pickles.

Now, here’s what I can talk about from a very unique perspective: I was once fired for my writing. Do you remember? I revealed my identity to Pittsburgh, things went BOOM!, and I got a text from my boss at the nonprofit NEED, which provides scholarships to African American students in Pittsburgh, that it would be “best if we parted ways.” Then my face was on the top of CNN.com for hours. And I was no longer the communications director, a job I held for six years. A job I ROCKED at. My performance reviews, like Wendy’s as she claims in her lawsuit, were amazing. I kicked so much ass. I was indispensable.

Until I wasn’t.

And people FREAKED. She got fired for something she wrote! What about her first amendment rights (I thought I asked you people to leave)!? And citizens from all over the world emailed my boss and called him all kinds of names. They called NEED and left nasty voice messages for him.

And me? I shut up about it. I. SHUT. UP. I didn’t bash my employer or my boss. Hell, I NOMINATED THE MAN FOR AN AWARD AFTER HE FIRED ME. And after his death, I spoke about him lovingly at the awards ceremony.

Why? Because of my understanding of the first amendment? Hell no.

Because of common sense, something Wendy Bell might want to look for after she washes the blinding greed and butthurt from her eyes.

My common sense and my thimble-full of self-awareness said this to my brain: If instead of writing the things I wrote, I stood at NEED’s front door, identified myself as an employee, and then as funders, students, parents, board members and other stakeholders entered, I said to them, “Good morning! Do you know that Mayor Luke is a giant doofus? Stand here a moment while I use snark to tell you the exact degree of doofus-ry he engaged in today. He is the worst mayor in the history of mayorship and we are inviting him to attend our fundraiser and to hold a press conference for us announcing our fundraising campaign! Hope he says yes! Also, UPMC is a money-hoarding monopoly and I dislike them greatly. We are begging them to fund our new workforce development initiative. Hope they say yes! But they really do suck. I mean, worst ever,” I WOULD BE FIRED.

Therefore, saying those things online was also a fireable offense, as my employer saw fit, regardless of how good I was at my job. Regardless of how amazing my performance reviews were. I knew that whether I was typing it online or standing in the doorway shouting it to stakeholders, the same thing held true — MY. WORDS. HAVE. CONSEQUENCES.

I stand by my words. Every one of them. Every word I got fired for. They are all here. But I also accepted it when my words kicked me in the butt and cost me my job.

Wendy Bell’s words on a WTAE-BRANDED FACEBOOK PAGE, and her refusal to acknowledge the error of her words had consequences and she greatly dislikes those consequences so she wants money for her suffering:

a. Great mental anguish and emotional strain;
b. Loss of income and benefits; and
c. Humiliation and inconvenience.

She is the life-giver to her own humiliation. She is the creator of her own inconvenience. She is the author of her own firing. And she is the mother from which Joe’s great mental anguish and emotional strain were born.

She. Her. Alone. Caused this all. And she still doesn’t understand why what she wrote was wrong.

She will read this, and she will not understand it because she will read it through her cloudy veil of narcissistic self-absorption.

But if she reads any one sentence in this post with crystal clear vision, may it be this: any money received from this lawsuit will not bring any measure of happiness to her; ill-gotten gains only breed greater ills.

Be gone, Wendy Bell. Be so far gone. And don’t let the door hit you in your Emmys on the way out.


  1. Marcy
    June 21, 2016 11:26 am

    Yes to all of this. A thousand times yes.

  2. Gwen Schmidt
    June 21, 2016 11:35 am

    I am given to wonder just how much whine can she make with her sour grapes?

  3. MaryinPgh
    June 21, 2016 11:42 am

    If Wendy were on Wheel of Fortune, she’d need to by ALL of the vowels, even Y. Girlfriend doesn’t have a clue.

    Happy no-electronics summer everyone!

  4. Barry Streb
    June 21, 2016 11:46 am

    Your article is spot on. I couldn’t agree more.

  5. David DeAngelo
    June 21, 2016 11:47 am

    A small, completely beside the point, point: It’s Vincent Gambini, not Gambino.

  6. Bill Paduto
    June 21, 2016 11:47 am

    Everyone give Virginia a pat on the back, lets stroke her ego more. Get over it already.

  7. MaryAnn
    June 21, 2016 11:57 am

    Agree with every word. I’m guessing that you’re way over the gross girl-crush you had on Wendy during your PittGirl phase? Seems like you helped create the monster.

  8. Chris
    June 21, 2016 11:59 am

    Any advice on how exactly one washes the butthurt from one’s eyes? Asking for a friend.

    God, I love your writing. Well-stated.

  9. Nicola Batts
    June 21, 2016 12:02 pm

    BRAVA!! Can you find a chance to read this to her with a megaphone?

  10. John McIntire
    June 21, 2016 12:07 pm

    The time has come to stand up for clueless privileged white people ! #FreeWendyBell

  11. NotAWendyFan
    June 21, 2016 12:22 pm

    OMG this is amazing and everything I was thinking… She NEEDS to read this but she won’t. I hope Hearst doesn’t cave to her nonsense. She’s just pissed because she’s got no money and no other station wants to hire her diva ass. Boo hoo.

    • Me Neither
      June 21, 2016 5:02 pm

      So true! But she does have money, just no earned income or TV exposure now. She markets herself on her new Facebook page as Mother of the Year. Methinks that a tad disingenuous. How is she finding time to post videos and pictures and write lengthy essays and file lawsuits now that she has the opportunity to be a full time stay at home Mom? I don’t think she really is who she portrays herself to be. If she she does an electronics ban on her kidsin the summer, why doesn’t she apply the same rules to herself? Do as I say, not as I do!

  12. Tracie Magoc
    June 21, 2016 12:40 pm

    You are so damn good!!

  13. Jenny
    June 21, 2016 12:49 pm

    And That’s Church, folks!

  14. David Holcomb
    June 21, 2016 12:57 pm

    Mayor Luke WAS a giant doofus, and UPMC is money hoarding monopoly.

    Ohg…and all that stuff you said about Wendy Bell. Spot on.

  15. Sooska
    June 21, 2016 2:03 pm

    Yes! Virginia, there is a Santa Claus and he has gift-wrapped this lawsuit to us from Wendy Bell. What a glass bowl.

    (I’m wondering how her former co-workers that she threw under the bus (etc) will receive her WhiteHighness in the studio if she wins. (As improbable as it may sound.) I hope Hearst doesn’t settle.)

  16. PupMD
    June 21, 2016 2:15 pm

    Stealing unicorns and pickles!

  17. Donna
    June 21, 2016 3:10 pm

    I like you even more after this.

  18. Rob
    June 21, 2016 4:05 pm

    I don’t care about Wendy Bell.

    But this (on top of the things you’ve done for kids in Children’s Hospital) is why I go a little too fanboy over you. I’m really not trying to be obnoxious.

    But you’re just all sorts of awesome.

  19. Blogginglily
    June 21, 2016 4:44 pm

    You make me smile.*

    *That’s not snark. I actually mean that**
    **That is also not snark. And so on.

  20. Suzie-Q
    June 21, 2016 4:44 pm

    Not enough adjectives to describe how wonderfully accurate this article portrays the truth…or should I say #thatschurch!!
    Thank you….

  21. Pens Fan
    June 21, 2016 5:26 pm

    Right on!! To mention your coworkers is low!! She is not the nice person her supporters thinks she is!! Wendy is self serving !

  22. John Eismann
    June 21, 2016 5:33 pm

    And we haven’t even touched on her moronic and ill-advised #PittsburghStrong social media campaign that blew up in her face like a can of diet soda. But this is the final nail. You can do pretty much anything in TV and in life and come back from it – theft, drunk driving, etc. – but a lawsuit alleging racism puts Wendy Bell on the permanent, corporate “do not fly” list.

  23. Lynn C
    June 21, 2016 5:43 pm

    This article is amazing! Already sent to many people. I’m sure it will be WELL received by the people who just LOVE her. There will be excuse after excuse. I thank you for writing this and completely putting this in perspective.

  24. Martin Diel
    June 21, 2016 5:57 pm

    I laughed until I cried, twice! Excellent article!

  25. Max
    June 21, 2016 6:03 pm

    Bravo! Not only words but her intonations and gestures aimed at adding personal comments to the news she was to read drove me away from watching WTAE news.

    • r
      June 21, 2016 6:49 pm

      Right there with you, Max. Unbearable how she couldn’t wait to open her mouth at the conclusion of someone else’s reporting.

  26. Michele Bartos
    June 21, 2016 6:13 pm

    Guess what, I am sick and tired of being accused of being racist. Yes, I am white but like the brown, yellow and red skinned humans it seems I am the only one that is capable of being racist. Yes, I am through with being judged by the color of MY skin, finished with political correctness. It is time to be honest.

  27. jerry
    June 21, 2016 8:24 pm

    i am so glad this is the last time you write about Wendy Bell

  28. Mary Beth
    June 21, 2016 8:28 pm

    Can you please write a thank you note from me to you for writing this, because I have no words to describe how much i love this, and you obviously have ALL the words. Badassery is what this is.

  29. Joel
    June 21, 2016 9:36 pm

    Wendy Bell was on thin ice for quite a while. She was, as they say, getting “too big for her britches.” Yes, narcissism will do this. She thought should she was the story and headed for national attention. I remember her grilling a spokesman for the pa turnpike after a major snowstorm and asking the same question over and over.

    • Me Neither
      June 22, 2016 7:39 am

      Excellent observation. And I remember that grilling she gave the PA turnpike spokesman. Her glaring expression and accusatory body language along with repeating the same question over and over was akin to throwing daggers at him. It was very unprofessional and distasteful…that’s why it stayed with me. The man didn’t deserve that. To his credit, he handled himself well. He couldn’t control the weather! Her ego is out of control.

  30. 4mer
    June 22, 2016 1:24 am

    Kudos on your outstanding writing. Thank you for the focus on journalism and accountability for one’s words and deeds. Smart journos know: report the news — don’t BE the news.

    And all that awards hardware? Tarnishes quickly in the hands of a storyteller who’s forgotten what’s most important. (That would be the story. NOT the crafter of the “tell”…)

    Love #thatschurch

  31. jf
    June 22, 2016 8:57 am

    This may be one of the best employment law firms in the city. The attorneys involved are very accomplished-I’m sure they thought long and hard about whether to bring this case-I sincerely doubt it was a “money-grab.”

    It’s nice to be flip and it becomes easy I guess in that context to throw out derogatory comments about people that you don’t know. It scores emotional points in the same way Donald Trump does when he calls a journalist a sleaze. But just like Trump it doesn’t really address a substantive question. You create a negative idea in the mind of readers (well-some readers) without actually proving anything negative about the persons you are commenting upon. Are these lawyers money-grabbers? Aside from just saying that-what’s the proof? As plaintiff’s employment law attorneys I would bet they take on some tough cases to help protect the vulnerable against the powerful. I’m not sure a blanket statement about their integrity serves any purpose here.

    I would imagine 90% of the cases they bring would be representing those who most would sympathize with-women, minorities and older people-all discriminated against due to sex, race or age. In this case-establishing that people saying something and having it considered offensive or unethical merely because of the race of the speaker might come in handy in future cases where the speaker is a minority, woman or older person. The point here being the law can’t make offensive comments no longer offensive, but it can protect any speaker from discrimination. And sometimes its those who are currently unpopular or considered offensive who are most in need of protection.

    Just to address one specific point. One of the most important things to prove in any discrimination case is pretext-that the given reason for firing was not the actual reason. The examples of Stockey and Junker directly address one of the given reasons for the firing-that Bell’s comments violated the company’s ethical standards. Not firing someone who had made lewd comments to fellow employees, and hiring someone who is arrested for engaging in prostitution raise pretty valid questions about whether the employer really does care about its ethical standards.

    It implies that concern for ethical standards is inconsistently applied, and that maybe “ethical standards” is just an excuse used to put a better face on what is really going on-that she was fired because sometimes white people can’t say things that black people can-and vice versa. That’s the interesting crux of the argument. I make o assertion of its validity.

    The fact that the mens’ actions (can you see where the gender argument will come up?) were personal and hers not personal-is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is the fact that Junker wasn’t working for WTAE at the time he acted unethically is irrelevant. The station knew of his unethical behavior at the time of his hiring and still hired him. That can be seen as inconsistent with their claims of concern for their ethical standards. Do you think the company wants to make a distinction between personal and professional ethics? Are they really ready to say if an employee is arrested for abuse of a spouse-“oh-that’s ok-we are not going to fire him because that is only personally unethical?”

    In the context of showing an employer doesn’t have a sincere concern with ethical behavior the distinction between personal and professional behavior (and I would argue lewd comments at work are professional behavior) doesn’t matter. As a lawyer making this distinction in court would be dangerous-as it implies that the employer isn’t concerned with the unethical personal behavior of it’s employees-which might include violence, abuse or theft, and this could create a negative impression of the employer in the minds of a jury.

    I don’t participate in blogs so I hope my comments are ok. You might notice I make no comment on what kind of person Wendy Bell is. I just think sometimes it’s easy to jump on the bandwagon and vilify those currently seen as negative. It’s harder to still recognize their rights, the validity of some of their points. The rights of all the unpopular or despised in society should be protected-even if they aren’t people we currently sympathize with. In fact-maybe when we have such a strong bias that is the time we should be most careful.

    • Bill Butts
      June 22, 2016 1:36 pm

      Well, this doesn’t smell like PR from said law firm.

      • jf
        June 22, 2016 3:12 pm

        ugh. i want to thank the person whose blog this is for letting me be part of your community and discussion. And it’s seems ungracious of me (bad manners in a guest!) to associate you with Trump in any way-so I apologize for that-I’m sure you don’t hold any views in common with him! My point was just that sometimes we need to be careful of making dismissive insulting comments rather without critical support. i should have just said that.

        i’m surprised people assume just because someone has a slightly different view of some things-or makes a distinction about a legal argument-that means they must be a hostile outsider. isn’t it possible that intelligent progressive people might have a different take? There are other interests here-this would be a case of an individual versus a large corporation, of a woman and how she is treated in the work place, and of race and how we talk about race as we balance our individual expression and our jobs.

        at this point i’m just wishing there was a delete button for my comments!

    • John E. Lovasz
      June 23, 2016 4:50 pm

      Spoken like a true lawyer.

  32. Me Neither
    June 22, 2016 9:10 am

    Is this you, Wendy Bell? Did you write this? It’s long and rambling. Nah, it doesn’t contain your syrupy style. Probably some one from the law office. Strange, that someone who doesn’t blog found this site and felt compelled to write this lengthy piece.

  33. jf
    June 22, 2016 9:31 am

    I knew it was a mistake to comment here. I don’t think anything above exonerates Wendy Bell from being pretty reprehensible. I just tried to express why the lawsuit might be useful and valid. I experienced this in graduate school. A colleague criticized the structure of an argument from a feminist perspective. He was sympathetic to the feminist viewpoint but thought the argument was flawed. From then on he was considered mysogynist and anti-women.

    Unfortunately there’s no way to delete my comment. For the record I am not Wendy Bell or someone from the law office-just someone who stumbled across it and found the mix of legal and social criticism interesting-and entertaining. i thought maybe I could be part of a conversation-and I was very careful not to say anything that seemed to justify her behavior.

    Also-I reread what i wrote-I have to say it seems pretty well-structured to me and not rambling! But then I guess I’m biased. I also think sometimes you have to take a minute to fully say what you have to say and support it, rather than just throw things out there.

    I had a feeling I really didn’t understand the tone and context of this kind of forum and shouldn’t have written-but I found it all interesting. Maybe the moderator could delete my comments-I’d appreciate it.

    And by the way-I make no argument concerning my first amendment rights! Now-on the separation of “church” and state i might have something to say…

    • PM
      June 23, 2016 3:37 pm


      Don’t be sorry for what you have written.
      I think you expressed alternate views intelligently.
      It’s probably seen as rambling, since you took more than 2 seconds, in this past paced, media sound bite driven world.

      I am from Pittsburgh, & have thoroughly enjoyed Virginia’s PittGirl blog.

      What I don’t love about Pittsburghers’, is that we can make a judgment about something as complex as The Wendy Bell situation in like two minutes.
      Hey, you don’t even have to have all the facts.
      Just like The Breaking News segments at ‘TAE’, bad news sells.

      It’s a real shame that the management at WTAE did not take the opportunity, in light of what happened, to host an on air discussion about what she posted & why it was inflammatory to people. It was a lost opportunity to move racial discussions along in a more positive way. There are any number of local experts that could have provided insights for all.

      Just my opinion, but maybe WTAE terminated Wendy for multiple reasons, least of all may have been to get out of her high priced contract.

      Just my two cents.


  34. Jim Emanuel
    June 22, 2016 9:59 am

    Up until now, I thought irony was dead. However, now that the princess of white entitlement has sued for racial discrimination …

  35. The Boss
    June 22, 2016 10:04 am

    Yes, but … I think there is still a legitimate question about WTAE’s responsibility in this. It’s worth exploring, which is part of the aim of the lawsuit. Or is Virginia angling for a job with ‘TAE by gliding over this angle?

  36. Moe the Dog
    June 22, 2016 4:27 pm

    If I were WTAE, I would settle the lawsuit an agree to hire her back. She would be a perfect fit for the 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. morning lead-in news on their HD Channel.

  37. Donald
    June 22, 2016 5:52 pm

    I can’t see why an article on racism should create such a fuss. It happens every day in America. I’m more interested in the muslims the mayor wants to bring to Pittsburgh. That should create some real up close and personal action. Maybe like what happened in CA or FL? Or do Burghers still believe muslims are peaceful followers of a peace loving religion?

  38. Sue Morris
    June 22, 2016 10:00 pm

    This is so spot-on that even if Wendy Bell filled the Highland Park Reservoir with liquid stain remover, she couldn’t dilute the power of what you’ve written.

    Thank you for spelling it all out so beautifully.

  39. Heather
    June 22, 2016 11:03 pm

    Yes well, she once made “assumptions” as well about me….
    Hope she finally learned something….

  40. Dave
    June 23, 2016 12:35 pm

    Ye, verily!

  41. Jill M
    June 23, 2016 12:44 pm

    Yes, especially this: MY. WORDS. HAVE. CONSEQUENCES.

    Yes, you have a right to free speech – you can pretty much say whatever you want to, but understand, there may be consequences.

    Life is one long lesson….

    PS: I really hope you are keeping “That’s Church”, even though you are leaving the PG.

  42. Hope
    June 23, 2016 2:44 pm

    I switched back to WTAE news now that they’ve fired that phony, obnoxious, social climbing egomaniac.

  43. bucdaddy
    June 24, 2016 1:27 am

    “Sam Cordes”

    All you needed to write.

  44. JAK
    June 24, 2016 3:37 pm

    There are certainly many ways to twist this “Rubix Cube of Injustice”. I will admit that I’ve met Wendy on several occasions. (oh, stop with the faces) What concerns me the most is the utter viciousness and hatred that exudes out of your pores, regardless of who you are talking about. ( sans JF)
    It saddens me on many levels that society has become so “Trumpish”. We no longer discuss the issues, the goal now is to maul the person saying it. The end result is to block any rhetoric by trumping with the nastiest, most character slaying, vulgar things you can think of to accentuate your point. Really? Really.
    As a public school teacher all we do anymore is counsel kids from bullies and “the mean kids”. It’s hard to promote character and extinguish hate when our youth have you to emulate.
    I truly believe you can make your point(s) without releasing your utter hatred for a fellow human being.

    For the good of all society, give it a try.

  45. Nikki Carlson
    June 24, 2016 10:32 pm

    What she said initially about the murders was spot on, I would have been thinking the same thing. But as a professional journalist working for a local news organization, who wants to keep her job, she should know what not to say and when to keep her trap shut. And if she couldn’t see the lofty-white-ignorant-cluelessness of her restaurant story then she’s just that. As far as suing for racial discrimination… ridiculous. Unless she wants to donate the money to that neighborhood or to the young restaurant boy’s college fund. 😉

  46. Steve Dennison
    June 24, 2016 10:38 pm

    Wow. I would love to see if a black news anchor made a true statement about a situation involving white males. There would be no firing. No news coverage decrying the comments. In fact, the local media would do investigation after investigation to show that white men are always trying to screw someone over or whatever it was they were doing. We see it weekly here in Pittsburgh. Instead of the black community being offended by the truth that was spoken.. and she was right.. they should be looking at their own youth and their own parenting skills. The black community allows their own to do whatever they want to do. When they do it they blame the police or the mayor or anyone they can. This crap will continue until the black community holds its youth accountable. Wendy was right and she deserves to be viewed as a person who spoke nothing but the truth. Who else would have committed this ridiculous crime? White kids from Pine=Richland? Nope. Black youth or young men with a shitty upbringing, no morals and a history of crime. It did not take Columbo to figure that one out.

  47. DeeAnn
    June 25, 2016 9:08 am

    I agree with everything you wrote. But there is a network for Wendy unless she’s too small town. I’m sure she can find a way to contribute as Ann does. She would have to go blonde though.

  48. SCM
    June 25, 2016 12:04 pm

    And there goes Virginia, driving the Hate Wendy train right down the middle of Ardmore Boulevard.

    We get it. You’re not a fan. You do a lot of good in this town. Don’t let it be overshadowed by your overwhelming hate of another person. Get over it and move on.

    Sometimes I think your flip-outs on Wendy have much more to say about YOU than they do about her.