Gratuitous nonsense in march coverage

I attended the Chicago March Jan. 21 as did many of my relatives and friends. It was an overwhelmingly positive experience with a wonderful vibe throughout.

The signs were nearly all clever and/or positive. There was great diversity in the crowd, from the very young to the very old, white, black, and every color in between, even a surprising number of men in a march advertised as a women's march. There was none of the fear and hate that is so much a part of Trump rallies.

So it was with dismay that I read James Fuller's report in the Jan. 22 paper. Why does the third paragraph start out with "A bus stop shelter with 'Die Fascist Scum' spray painted on the side"? There is no evidence nor reason to suppose that graffiti was at all related to the rally, especially since there was nothing else in the rally similar to it.

It's as if coverage of the inauguration parade started out by talking about graffiti sprayed on a local wall and attributed it to the attendees.

Did he have orders to start the article with something negative? Or was it his own choice? In that case, where was the editor who should have taken such gratuitous nonsense out of a news story?

Jacqueline Buehring

Naperville