It's funny the first article in RTD prior to the event seemed PRO for the writers viewpoint. The writer that covered the event seemed to put a more ANTI slant on it. I guess that is the way the paper can stay neutral by having two different writers give opposite views on the same subject instead of providing an unbiased accounting of the news. If you only read one or the other articles you won't get the whole story.
The media thrives on controversy. Bland or boring news doesn't attract the masses. Advertising dollars are generated in direct proportion to the audience.