Sometimes, especially from a distance, readers can get different takes on the same political contest.

Take recent coverage of the Pennsylvania race for governor in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Last Sunday, The Times carried a piece under the headline "Pennsylvania Governor Faces an Uphill Battle for a Second Term." It included a picture of a grim-faced Corbett.

The piece notes no incumbent Pennsylvania governor has lost reelection since the 1960's when the state constitution was amended to allow for two terms instead of one.

Then it notes Republican Gov. Corbett is seen as the most vulnerable incumbent governor in the country.

And while it also notes that four Democrats -- Tom Wolf, Rob McCord, Katie McGinty and Allyson Schwartz -- are in a contested primary to face Corbett in the fall, one that has included a series of attack TV ads against front-running Wolf, it reports "even those in Mr. Corbett's party do not always sound convinced" he can prevail.

You can read The Times piece here.

The Wall Street Journal focuses on the Democratic fight. It's headline is "Pennsylvania Primary Grows Testy."

There's a picture of the four Democratic candidates standing at podiums prior to a debate.

And the piece opens with "A Democratic primary battle in Pennsylvania has alarmed party elders, who say the

internecine attacks could undercut a chance at unseating vulnerable Republican Gov. Tom Corbett."

You can read The Journal article here.

So The Times, which (let's be honest) leans left, offers readers a tale of trouble for Republican Corbett, and The Journal, which (let's continue to be honest) leans right, offers hope for Republican Corbett's salvation.

And, look, there's nothing wrong with either take. I mean it's not as if these are print versions of one-sided MSNBC or FOX. I've always argued that truth-seekers need more than one source of news. This is but a good example.