Saturday, February 19, 2011

Opinion by Charles and Rebecca Reier: Daily Advocate Fails Basic Accounting

A race to the bottom in math

The Daily Advocate published an editorial cartoon on February 18th that presents a picture of a bill for defending the “sexual offender residency restriction ordinance law” being handed to parents who ask: “Uh-how much is our portion?” A child at the bottom of the cartoon says: “bbut we could’ve used that money to build a new school!”

The implication of the cartoon is that the potential cost of defending the ordinance will prevent the community from building a new school. Let us carefully examine the validity of this editorial premise. The per capita potential cost of defense is ten to twenty dollars while that of a new school is two thousand six hundred dollars+/-. Indeed the cost (including state contribution) of a new school is 165-330 times the the cost of defense of the “sexual offender residency restriction ordinance law” .

How could the Daily Advocate have missed this point without being infected with an overwhelming bias against the City Council? Is the Daily Advocate guilty of mud-slinging and tabloid journalism?

At this point we, as subscribers to the Daily Advocate, are asking another accounting question. How much is this kind of flawed (unprofessional?) journalism worth to ourselves and the community we support?

Charles E. Reier MD, Rebecca A. Reier

[Addendum by authors: Since the population of the Greenville School District is uncertain but larger than the City, the inflated estimate of legal costs should more than compensate for this difference. Furthermore there is the distinct possibility that significant legal action will never be taken just as the ACLU threat published in the Daily Advocate never materialized.]

13 comments:

  1. This is why I don't subscribe!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Advocate is and always has been guilty of mud-slinging and tabloid journalism when it comes to this issue, started way back in 02, The council did the right thing and I stand behind them 100%. If my taxes have to be raised to defend lawsuits then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. First of all, there are two completely separate political subdivisions involved. The only correlation between the two could be if a taxpayer was billed directly for the two occurrences. Since most people have no clue how government is divided or funded, I'm sure it made little difference. The city blew it by not having ordinances in place before JG came to town. It's a little late now. Make the distance 3 miles and then it will be the Township's problem.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was disgusted that once again that "newspaper" has chosen to display its obvious bias against greenville's citizens and the council who represent them. This is why I chose long ago to not subscribe to that particular bird cage liner. The "cartoonist" apparently finds humor in a citizenry attempting to protect the children and neighborhood they live in and love. I do not. I would like to thank the Riers for their hard work and effort they have put forth in bringing forth information to all of us. I am not good with words but I know how I feel and I feel they have scraped the bottom of the barrel with those "cartoons".

    ReplyDelete
  5. I also stand behind the Council's decision but must ask, why the concern over defending the City from lawsuit? Doesn't the City have an elected, paid attorney? Is he unwilling or incapable of defending the one who continues to pay him?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The so called artist (as much as someone does sharpie graffiti in a truck stop bathroom stall is an artist) and the so called newspaper are both biased. The Advocate 360 is irrelevant in present time. They are biased, and their reporters are just a step above school reporters.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just a step above school reporters? Um...which grade? Middle school? Honestly, some of those reporters may not have been admitted into journalism school. I wonder how many actually have a degree in journalism...

    ReplyDelete
  8. While I support the schools in the effort to look at new builidngs so that new technology can be feasably implemented, I agree with the Reiers on this opinion. The Advocate's comparison of the two issues highlights the lack of understanding of how gov't funding works and it also could (and probably will) bring more oposition to new schools. Since the Advocate claims to be for the schools, I think poor choices like the one to print that comment is counter productive.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Maybe I missed the beginning of the article but I was pretty sure this was based on an EDITORIAL CARTOON. I've seen a variety of cartoons in other papers that I didn't agree with or even think were funny but I didn't equate the cartoon with the paper. It's one person's perception of an issue, not the paper's. We've all seen numerous ones of Barack or Bush. If you don't like the Advocate that's fine, but at least recognize the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  10. a thinking citizen of greenvilleFebruary 21, 2011 at 2:06 PM

    I think you are all off base. I think that the advocate has done a good job of covering all sides of the issue. the EDITORIAL CARTOON is designed to make people think about all aspects of an issue. In case you haven't noticed there have been cartoons with Mr. Graham, the city leaders, the sex offenders and now this one. they have pointed out all sides of the story. I feel that is great newspaper myself. its not a bias just becasue this week the cartoon happens to be pointing out a bad point about your side of the issue. It has nothing at all to do with schol funding it is pointing out the potential futility and expense of funds the city (citizens) does not have to fight an issue that no one can prove is true or false at this point. Hurrrah Mr Ackley for making us think!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Are you all serious? Harping over a cartoon? Get a life, seriously. Mr. Ackley does a FANTASTIC job on everything he does, at least he is keeping it real on all sides. If you don't like the Advocate, then get your news elsewhere, pretty simple, don't ya think? Keep up the great work Paul!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why hasn’t the Advocate reported on one of Graham’s parolees that recidively raped a woman and was sent to prison for thirty years? This and a lot of useful informative information is available but, because of its bias, the Advocate has never taken the time to even look at this newsworthy material. Isn’t a repeat rape by one of Graham’s parolees important to the Advocate? By the way, he also had addiction and psychiatric problems, neither of which the Graham program is capable of managing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. very good point Greenville Citizen. For all you that believe they have been biased, get real. Lets dont put a spin on all this, it is what it is and we as citizens are sick of getting the wool pulled over our eyes. This little town paper isnt going to change whats real. Maybe it should be changed to the Daily Opinion.
    And to the Reirs, Thank you!

    ReplyDelete

Featured Posts

/* Track outbound links in Google Analytics */