The city of Springfield, Ohio, has unwittingly become Ground Zero in the political maelstrom of this election, buffeted by the crosswinds of opportunism and the politicization of the press. While the Trump-Vance campaign has been highlighting what may be taking place in this small town the news outlets have been more eager to accuse the campaign of hatefulness and division, rather than looking into the matter. As a result, a surreal battle of will is swirling and the facts are completely lost in the debris.

We are in an era in which this country's legacy news media displays an abject lack of regard for their journalistic reputations. The current driving force in the press is to instantly oppose anything Donald Trump says and claim he has been proven wrong, even in the absence of proof. Over the past few weeks, this has been the prevailing narrative. 

Currently, the Springfield pets-being-eaten-by-immigrants imbroglio is the latest case the press is stumbling and fumbling over. Trump has been labeled as a racist and accused of fomenting intolerance over this “false” story, and it has even been cited as a possible inspiration for the latest assassination attempt on Trump. (Small matter that the attempted shooter is not Haitian, is not an immigrant, and did not hail from Springfield.) The press has been firm in its declaration that the story is disproven, including David Muir, who stated such a statement during the debate.

Except…

Gradually, and against the will of the media, details are seeping out of the area that something of this nature could be transpiring, or at the very least has been a concern for residents. What the press has failed to do is step back to take a breath and then consider for a moment just what might have been the source of such a story. If Trump is in fact making up the tale of devoured housepets, why would he concoct such a weird fable? Was there any basis at all for the claim from him, and his running mate J.D. Vance?

At the debate David Muir battled with Trump on this issue, declaring that a city manager stated there have been no reports. It has been said that the police have received no calls on this issue as well. But as Trump said to Muir, this had been something the residents had been talking about taking place, and now we see this is in fact the case. Here is a video, from a city commission meeting, where the subject is not only brought up by a resident, but one of the members attests to hearing this kind of talk as well.

As for the talk of there being no police involvement, this too is not completely true. There has been a call log made involving one resident calling the police when her cat went missing and then later finding some evidence of a butchered animal.

Now, it cannot be stated that these instances are definitive proof, but at the same time, they counter the claims that Trump and Vance are basing claims on nothing at all. As for Vance, who said he has been contacted by residents on this very matter, NPR tries to say they disproved him by taking the rare step of actually looking into the matter. But even this runs into trouble.

So yes, in this instance it turns out the cat was not taken or harmed. But it is one instance and does not disprove anything else has happened. But also important it does back up Vance’s statement that residents have contacted him on this matter, something that had been called into question. If this woman’s cat turns up in good condition it in no way proves Vance lied about being contacted about this. 

There seems to be a flow chart in play on this issue. Each time something disqualifying to the narrative turns up, the goalposts are shifted:

Trump lied about this story (residents have been reporting this since March) → Vance has not been contacted about this (a resident they referred to has been confirmed) → Authorities have not been involved → (police have been called on this matter) → There is no call log showing this took place (call log is provided) → This in no way proves pets are being stolen!

All the while the press has been rather active in reporting on bomb scares and other supposed violent fallout taking place as a result of these "false" claims by Trump and Vance. Has the press thought about why hearing about the possible consumption of cats might inspire someone to call in a threat to a local school?! No, no they have not, but that has not abated the accusatory reports that Trump led to that result. Now we see Governor Mike DeWine has come out to announce they have found those calls to be hoaxes generated by overseas disruptors.

If we had a serious journalism sector there are enough elements in play to at least warrant investigation, as each step of the denial process has been met with something to counter that claim. Instead, the press appears to want there to be no story so they can accuse Trump and Vance of fabricating this matter. If you do not investigate then you are guaranteed to receive no proof, and this leads conveniently to stating Trump lied.

It is easy to see why there is an incurious reaction in the press. Springfield was a town of just 60,000 residents. In the past few years, it has experienced an influx of 20,000 new arrivals. When a small town swells by 30 percent in that short period you will experience any number of social challenges. This "pets being eaten" story - even if proven to be false - has forced the media to discuss the issues in this town, an uncomfortable reality even when done tacitly. The press would rather we not look into this reality because of how it will reflect on the president who instigated this process and how it may impact the fortunes of his vice president who is vying for the White House.