When Stupidity Gives Way to Evil

Nina Brooke, who may be the worst writer at a newspaper full of disgraces to the profession, plays the race card:

Race plays a factor in some people’s objections to Mr. Witt. He is African-American. District 5 and Irmo High remain majority white. But the percentage growth in black students is high. That has not been universally accepted in an area that remains majority white while sitting alongside more diverse areas. It is not fair to blame Mr. Witt for changing demographics or to assume the changes mean something negative about Irmo High. Nonetheless, outdated notions persist.

...Which brings us to the challenges for District 5. The district’s only other African-American principal, Harbison West Elementary’s Secaida Howell, has also resigned. The district cannot allow its principals’ ranks to be monochromatic....

The diversity issue goes further, into the way that all children are taught at school. District 5 has not yet shown it can accept a changing student body and continue to succeed. The next few years will present a test of that ability.

In all these passages, Ms. Brooke hints at the charge of racism without forthrightly making allegations. Of course Brooke lacks even the flimsiest evidence to support her phantom charges. Just some circumstantial hokum and bean-counting. When she says, for example, that "the percentage of growth in black student population is high [and that] has not been universally accepted," does she have anything to back that up? Is there a statistic, a fact, a quote, or an anecdote that justifies her claim? Anything?

No, for Nina Brooke and other race hucksters, the mere hint of an allegation is enough. Irresponsible demagogues like Brooke use the state's painful past to ensure that racial wounds are constantly picked at—so that they fester and never heal properly. And for what? To score a few petty, political points or to make your fast-approaching deadline?

Nina Brooke, how do you sleep at night?

The State Stakes Out a Position

...against domestic violence but for Southern manners.

Tomorrow, Brad Warthen will editorialize against kitten-strangling but for Mom and Apple Pie.

Maybe we should call him Captain Courageous?

Bureau of Hypocrisy: Brad Warthen, Editor

Don't you just love it when arrogant, elitist newspapers that are privy to tax exemptions decide to argue against tax credits for others? (For exemeptions, scroll to the bottom of the page.)

It looks as though State editor Brad Warthen is not just an enemy of the taxpayer, but a coward as well. Given paragraphs like this one, does anyone believe that he's really talking about Big Box stores?

While it’s important to reclaim empty big boxes, it should not be done by offering tax credits. Tax credits only dip deeper into the state’s limited resources, which are needed for essential services. In most cases, before we offer tax credits, cuts or increases, we should study the effect they would have on the overall system, which means embarking upon much-needed comprehensive tax reform. We can’t afford to keep carving out special exceptions in our tax system without full tax reform.

If you oppose tax credits for education, Brad, just say so. Oh, I get it, you're opposing Put Parents in Charge—tax credits for middle class parents to send kids to the school of their choice. (That should be reserved for the well-off, you see; no sense in letting the peasants get too educated.) But having already transformed his once reputable newspaper into an SCEA press organ, Warthen is now too craven to say what he means.

Every time you think The State has hit bottom, it goes lower.

Is this a Sports Section? Or Tiger Beat?

Should Tommy Bowden be angry or relieved that he's never received the Steve Spurrier treatment from The State?

The Mount Everest of Stupidity

Readers of The State are treated daily to a generous helping of stolen imported Opinion columns from The New York Times. (By contrast, readers of The Post and Courier and The Greenville News get plentiful portions of factually accurate, locally relevant news.) This says a lot about The State. They buy that silly line about "all the news that's fit to print" and their elitist, left-wing world view is a pale imitation of what "The Gray Lady" does up in New York City. All that bowing and scraping is getting embarassing.

Anyway, today's Opinion Page includes a tender little epistle from NYTimes doyenne Maureen Dowd that compares replacing Nightline's Ted Koppel with the election of a new pope.

Further commentary is unnecessary.

Honest question: How stupid/offensive does something have to be before The State won't print it?

Credit Where It's Due

The State is not just a bad newspaper; it's consistently horrible. Sometimes you wonder if they're even trying.

But it's important to highlight when they do something right. Let it never be said that IdontBelievetheState.com is not the picture of fairness, justice, and wisdom in its media criticism.

So here's some praise for The State.

While the most awful page of The State is usually the Op-Ed page—who can forget the 15 part series on all the "problems" with Put Parents in Charge? The criticism was longer than the bill, for heaven's sake!—it also has the most potential for improvement. After all, the Op-Ed page has the advantage of including writers who don't work for The State.

Usually, the newspaper messes up the opportunity and gives us yet another guest column by some dope explaining why taxes aren't high enough and we need to spend more money on something or other (but not a tax cut!). Today's guest column, by Austin Cunningham, however, breaks the mold.

It actually looks for solutions for South Carolina problems that don't involve higher taxes or bigger, more intrusive government. Genius! Revolutionary!

Cunningham does an excellent job of analyzing South Carolina's problems and contrasting it with Florida's explosive economic growth and relatively responsible government. But here's my favorite part:

The commissioner of education is appointed by the governor. He and his board supervise everything, kindergarten through university.

If a public school fails two years in a row, parents get vouchers for other public or private schools.

So holding public officials accountable while giving parents more choices might actually improve schools? Who woulda thunk?

Really, the article is excellent. It provides a cornucopia of fresh new ideas that might get the state moving in the right direction. Now if only someone could do the same thing for The State!

Where's an Opinion When You Need One?

Every day, The State finds new and creative ways to disappoint me. Their endless supply of flubs and follies strains the imagination—it's as if Bill Gates had his entire wealth converted in to pennies!

Here's an opinion piece that fails to deliver an opinion. Instead the author Leon Pitts just shakes his head at the miseries he brings up and restates the question. (Why are so many rappers involved in shootings?)

Um, anyone could have asked that question or deplored death and mayhem. It would take someone with a special insight—perhaps, say, a newspaper columnist or something—in order to propose either a theory as to why things happen this way or what can be done about it.

So does Leon Pitts dare to answer his own (obvious, trivial) question?

Of course not.

But at least it gives the "newspaper" an excuse to put up this provocative, unedifying picture of 50 Cent with a handgun and a diamond studded cross.

A Newspaper Without Standards

Even the sports section is awful. Check out this article about the final match of Charleston's Family Circle Cup.

While many people blame declining newspaper circulation on languishing literacy levels, The State proves that you don't have to be literate to write for a newspaper. After all, here's a newspaper article that begins with not one, not two, but three sentence fragments.

One last forehand to erase a year of frustration.

One big bear hug to thank the coach who stayed by her side through the hard times.

One more Family Circle Cup title for Justine Henin-Hardenne, one more wave to the Charleston fans who never have seen her lose.

Here's a really quick grammar lesson for Patrick Obley: sentences need verbs.

Mr. Obley, you're writing for a large newspaper, not your personal journal. The use of proper English would be a nice courtesy for your readers, not to mention a good example for the children who want to be writers some day. Really, this shouldn't be too hard for a professional journalist to master.

Hate Mail

I've always objected strenuously to the theory that simply reading The State could make a person lose all judgment, perspective, and good sense. But after reading today's letters to the editor, well, I'm not so sure. First, there's this gem that unfavorably compares George Bush's proposed Social Security reforms to the terrorist mass murder campaigns:

They [Bush and the Republicans] are just as much a danger to America’s security as the terrorists they say they are fighting.

And then there's the inexplicably hysterical four paragraph rant about former President Carter not being included in the delegation to the Pope's funeral. I'm especially fond of the part where the reader expertly divines the late pope's wishes on the matter:

I’m sure the pope would much rather have had Jimmy Carter at his funeral than the official pack of warmongers and hypocrites.

This is just speculation, but isn't it at least possible that Carter isn't being snubbed? President Carter is over 80. Perhaps he wasn't up to the trip? Oh well, why extend the benefit of the doubt when you can simply assume the worst?

Bureau of Palpable Nonsense: Nina Brook, President

Have you ever seen someone raise the art of stupidity to the level of genius? What's that? You doubt it can be done? Well doubt no more! I give you Nina Brooke in today's issue of America's Worst Newspaper, where she compares the Civil War to adherence to the No Child Left Behind Act:

THERE IS A states’ rights movement afoot, and this time, South Carolina isn’t at the forefront — which is a good thing.

Okay, let's see if we can't get something straight by making it simple enough for every cretin, imbecile, and Nina Brooke fan to understand. There are major differences between the Civil War and No Child Left Behind. The Civil War was the turning point in American history. The issues involved were slavery, sectionalism, constitutional government, the tarriff, etc. The No Child Left Behind Act is the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, a relatively minor law defining the federal government's limited role in primary and secondary education. The Civil War cost the lives of over 600,000 Americans. No Child Left Behind has caused dozens of bureaucrats to get their panties in a wad.

I can't believe I have to write this. How low has American education sunk that someone like Nina Brooke can believe that comparing the bloodiest episode in American History to some current federally sponsored bureaucratic morass makes perfect sense?

The State Tortures Its Readers

It takes a special kind of masochist to read The State every day. (As a public service, I do it so you don't have to.)

One of the consistently lousy features of this consistently lousy paper is their insistence on stuffing the inside of the front page with mindless tripe about the lives of celebrities. (Did you know that Silver Spoons actor Rick Schroder turned 35 today?) Of course, maybe we shouldn't blame them—none of the stuff is originally reported; it's all from wire reports.

Today, they supplement the fluff-fest with a special treat on the Op-Ed page. Why, it's none other than Los Angeles Times Editor and über-nerd Michael Kinsley talking about the latest royal wedding.

Way to go, State, for keeping up with what's important to South Carolinians and what's important to the world.

Argument by Anecdote

Reading through today's edition of America's Worst Newspaper, I was briefly alarmed. It seemed as though there was no particulary shoddy reporting, only minimally misplaced priorities, few gaping holes in logic, and barely a biased, trashy article in the whole journal. I quickly checked to make sure that I was reading The State.

I was. I began to get nervous.

There was no need to worry, though. As sure as the sun rises in the morning, The State stinks, every Monday through Friday. (Why is it that they're often less horrible on the weekends? One of the many mysteries in our grand universe, I guess.)

Anyway, once I got to the "Life & Style" section, I found an article that was so utterly miserable, my jaw dropped to the floor. When it comes to being disappointing, The State does not disappoint.

Even the title is a klunker: "Social Security is about People." (The web title is slightly better.) This is about as informative as "Climate is about Temperature and Humidity." Thanks!

But it's the substance of the article that's odious. Basically, Claudia Smith Brinson tries to explain the workings of the federal government's largest entitlement program by a single anecdote. Usually, when authors use personal stories instead of aggregate data, we shake our heads and politely recite the Stats 101 dictum, "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'" In this case, we can't even do that; Brinson doesn't even use more than one anecdote! How does she imagine that she's explaining anything by telling the single story of Inez Williams? Could it be that Williams story is so all-encompassing that it represents the tens of millions of former, current, and future Social Security recipients?

It is to laugh.

Brinson--obviously embarassed by her own hackwork--eventually trots out a few statistics that she cribbed from the far-Left Economic Policy Institute (which sometimes does good work) and some obscure outfit called the Institute for Women's PolicyResearch. But it's all just for show. She'd rather just tell us the story of a destitute elderly woman who continues to make quilts at 92. It's a nice human interest story; it doesn't tell us much about social security.

Brinson's treatment of the facts--when she bothers to pay attention to them--is full of whoppers. I particularly like the one where she claims that all women over 75 are widows:

Since women live longer than men, our oldest women — those 75 and older — are without spouses.

Brinson's journalism is so horrific, one doesn't know whether to laugh, cry, or simply avert one's eyes.

Look, there are serious people doing serious analysis of Social Security reform from the Left and the Right. Even amateurs are doing serious work.

So why is The State making a joke out of one of the most important issues in the country?

Administrivia

Just as Columbia's lovely flowering trees have burst forth with spring's blooms (and pollen), the trolls have invaded the comments section. So let's set some ground rules. Comment spam will not be tolerated. No repetitive attacks on the website will be posted ad nauseum (I'm looking at you, Midnight Stalker.) If you've got something critical to say about the substance of a post, be our guest.

But general commentary on how much you dislike the blog just won't fly here. Start your own dang blog!

The State Loves Taxes

Do you know the look on your child's face right after they unload their Halloween candy on the kitchen table? Or the excitement in your kid's voice right after they step through the gates at a giant amusement park like Disney World or Six Flags?

You might think that that sort of glee is only available to young children. But you would be wrong. For The State, sheer, unadulterated ecstasy is what they feel when they think about. . . tax collection.

Consider the front page story in today's edition of America's Worst Newspaper. It joyfully informs us that the Department of Revenue has a fancy new computer—"like the alien creature in the movie 'Predator'[!]"—that will "hunt down tax welchers and nail them like they've never been nailed before." Awesome! Does it have lasers?

The article blathers on for another 868 words, describing with unconcealed awe the whiz-bang mechanics of what seems like a pretty neat machine.

But, since this is The State, they miss both the obvious questions and the implications for the common person. Typical. Never, not once, does America's Worst Newspaper bring up the specter of overzealous tax collection or the abrogation of taxpayers' rights. And why should they? According to The State, taxes are something that little people should pay gladly and even ask for more.

Look, no one likes tax cheats. (Okay, almost no one.) Intelligent people know that if enough people evade taxes, the rest of us will likely have to pay more. But it's irresponsible to pretend that their are no issues of privacy, civil liberties, and freedom that sit cheek-by-jowl with the state's need to coercively collect revenue.

The State to Facts: Drop Dead

Have you ever heard of wearing your heart on your sleeve? Well, The State wears its bias in its headlines. And subheadlines. And the body of its articles.

Yesterday, the Put Parents in Charge act passed out of subcommittee. It's a fairly simple story. Here's the headline from an article in the Greenville News:

House subcommittee passes school tax credit bill

And here's the headline from The State:

Tuition tax credit bill now faces stern test

And the subheadline from America's Worst Newspaper:

Panel OKs plan, but Ways and Means’ approval uncertain

Now it should be obvious to anyone who can read English that the first headline is descriptive and the second one (and its sub) is speculative. The Greenville News's headline deals with facts that have already happened while The State insist on using their magic powers of ESP to predict what will happen in the future.

And yes, this garbage continues throughout the article. The State "reporter" Jennifer Talhelm isn't content to simply report on the results of the vote or analyze the testimony before the subcommittee. Rather, she extrapolates from the fact that the measure has passed subcommittee by saying

But momentum appears to be against the proposal. Rep. Jim McGee, R-Florence, said Thursday he wasn’t sure whether the bill had the votes to get out of committee.

So passing subcommittee is now a sign that you're losing momentum? Very interesting. Here's the question: Is Jennifer Talhelm really this dumb, or does she just assume that about her readers?

Perspectives

What's more expensive--a tax cut or a tax hike? Well, it depends if you're a taxpayer or a bureaucrat.

One would imagine that The State is writing articles for citizens of the Midlands, most of whom do not work for the government. So why does "reporter" Jeff Stensland--supposedly writing a news piece--describe a larger tax cut as "more expensive?" Is it because Stensland thinks that the government budget is more important than your family's budget? Here's the offending paragraph:

The Senate approved a plan Wednesday to cut taxes on South Carolina’s small businesses — setting up a showdown with the House over Gov. Mark Sanford’s broader, more expensive income tax cut.

Even the Good Articles are Polluted by Lies

Today's State features an article that's considerably less awful than usual. (It's conveniently confined to the very bottom left corner of the front page, so it won't interfere by being visible.)

But the article is pretty good. It features outtakes of testimony given both for and against the Put Parents in Charge act, and adequately conveys the drama of a pitched battle before a divided sub-committee.

But The State deathly allergic to accuracy, so it couldn't sustain the even-handed reporting for the length of the article. Check out this laughably biased paragraph:

Called “Put Parents in Charge” by supporters, the bill would give tax breaks to parents who want to teach their children at home or send them to private school or another public school. [Emphasis added]

Now, why would supporters call the bill Put Parents in Charge? (Love the scare quotes, Jenn!) Um, I don't know, maybe because THAT'S ITS OFFICIAL NAME?!?!

Don't believe me? Check out the official statehouse website. Just type in the bill number, 3652, and click on 'submit.'

You will see this text: "A BILL TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA PUT PARENTS IN CHARGE ACT"

This takes all of about 30 seconds. But that's apparently too much effort to devote to accuracy for a writer from The State.

What's that you say? They can't possibly be that lazy? Okay, then they're either stupid or biased. Take your pick.

(And if you think I'm coming down too hard on a single error, well, they repeat the distortion in the sidebar.)

The Truth is a Many Splendored Thing

Sticking to the facts of a story is too boring for the writers at The State. It seems like every significant piece of original reporting has to include their own biases and take on the matter.

Today's front page article on rising gas prices is a perfect example. The article is entitled "Gasoline Prices Hit Commuters Hard." Since mass transit fares do not vary with gas prices, the (correct) implication of the article is that most South Carolinians drive to work. Indeed the text of the article says nothing to the contrary and eventually gets to some facts about gas prices.

So what sort of pictures accompany this lovely article? Why, not one but two pictures of people riding the bus to get around. (Even though there's no evidence that bus ridership has shot up lately.)

What's the not-so-subtle-implication? That South Carolinians should suck it up, forego automobile convenience, and use our public transportation like the civilized people in Washington DC or New York City might do.

The idea that South Carolinians might do things their own way is insufferable for the right-thinking people at The State. They know best.

It Must Be Upside-Down Day...

Lately, The State has been best known for its ongoing jihad against Gov. Sanford's education reform bill, Put Parents in Charge. By my count, they've published 13 official editorials against it in addition to over a dozen special opinion pieces opposing it. That doesn't even begin to account for their selective, second-rate, semi-literate, substance-free, bloviating, biased, nonsense "reporting" on the issue. Frankly, Brad Warthen has taken the largest newspaper in South Carolina and turned into a map of his outsized ego--devoting reams of paper and barrels of ink to opposing (a) fair debate on an important issue and (b) the best interests of parents and children in our state. ("But what will happen to the system?" you can almost hear Warthen whining.)

Today we received a brief glimpse of what would happen if The State were to report both sides of an issue. First, there's a piece in support of PPIC by the Executive Director of the Southern association of Black Independent Schools. Next, there's another piece in favor of subsidizing students, not buildings and bureaucrats. (It comes in the guise of an essay in favor of the GI Bill, America's most successful school choice program.) Finally, there's a letter (third one down) that honestly criticizes the consistent Chicken Little-ism of The State.

Today's State is replete with pro-PPIC opinions. Even though it's nice to have a different opinion repeated three times on the same page with no response, wouldn't it be even better to have both sides of an issue in the same paper?

Let's Play "Argument from Invective"

Today, The State's Cindi Ross Scoppe uses the phrase "Fat and Ugly" six times in one, badly written opinion piece. Note to Ms. Scoppe: Constructing an argument means more than simply repeating a mantra of juvenile name-calling.

What should she do instead? (Hint: Start with gathering some facts...)