Who writes this dreck? Argus skews against GOP because of disagreement on bill brought… by the GOP

@SoDakCampaigns

I’m scanning the morning news when I come across the latest incident of Media Malpractice. Stu Whitney’s awful headline, awful tag line, and somewhat slanted story:



The thrust of it was that the big scary “GOP political machine” killed the sales tax plan of cities.

Er, wasn’t the bill proposed by Corey Brown in the Senate, Scott Munsterman in the House, and about 35 other Republicans? About 1/3 to 1/2 of the Republicans in the legislature?

But, it doesn’t promote the agenda of “hate Republicans,” to simply state “Republicans disagree on city sales tax increase.” 

Ugh. 

35 thoughts on “Who writes this dreck? Argus skews against GOP because of disagreement on bill brought… by the GOP”

  1. yeah and the Argus wasted print writing about Sunshine Laws. We don’t need not stinkin Sunshine laws here!

  2. Stu Whitney is the worst reporter the Argus has. He’s so bad.

    I like it when someone sticks it to the GOP or SDDP but for goodness sakes use some common sense.

    Whitney is terrible. I feel Jonathan Ellis is a shill for the Thune operatives – his stuff is boring most of the time. Montgomery might have been the only reasonable political reporter at the Argus and he slanted somewhat left.

    1. i felt Montgomery had a sufficiently healthy objectivity. you have to remember, his readers and editors all start from a left position, any story you write for them has to begin where they can understand it. montgomery was pretty fair, all things considered.

  4. What’s inaccurate? Reps brought the bill and reps killed it. Anyone who thinks whitney is a poor writer or bad journalist is an idiot.

    2. I’d be anonymous too, Stu’s mom.

      But I hate to break it to you. He sucks as a political writer. “Anyone who thinks whitney is a poor writer or bad journalist” is not an idiot. They have basic powers of observation.

      1. pp is right, the appropriate lead line should be about republicans differing on the issue. since the democrats suck so bad in this state right now at participating in the process, the sad truth is that republicans have to be the movers on both sides of any issue. write that one, stu.

      2. Anonymous March 22, 2015 at 2:34 pm, I hate to break it to you but I’m not Stu’s mom. I’m male and
        coincidentally have a cat named Stu but I am not related to the writer. There’s one key component that
        you seem to fail to understand: Mr. Whitney wrote a column. A column expresses an opinion. You obviously
        disagree with his opinion so of course Mr. Whitney sucks. He wrote a column quite a few weeks ago asking
        John Thune to run for president. I don’t see you and Mr. Powers complaining about that.

        Are you a journalist? Have you spent years and years writing for a living? If not, you are not an expert and are in
        no position to come across as someone whose opinion of a journalist is the word of God.

        1. “hey john are you running for president yet?” comes up all the time from reporters who really don’t care what thune has to say about the questions they really should be asking at any given time. asking thune about running for president yet is like saying “*yawn* is this press conference over yet?” whitney’s column on a thune run for president is fluff, a nothing but fun time-wasting on the lib side.

  5. I’d take Stu Whitney more seriously if he’d spent even one day in Pierre this year. He is trying to write an “insider account” but it is clear from reading this that he doesn’t really know his topic.

    This wasn’t a partisan bill. Some republicans, including most Senate leaders, supported it. Some republicans, including the governor and most House leaders, opposed it. It got a floor vote in both houses. It passed the senate by two votes and failed in the house by three. That’s not sinister or underhanded – that’s the process.

    And all of that happened more than a week ago. Why is this even a topic at this point?

    2. Mercer and Whitney have the same problem, but different sides of the coin.

      Mercer never leaves Pierre. Whitney never has gone there.

  7. On behalf of ESD schools would like to say that we were happy to see Stu promoted off of the sports page. Now the Republicans in South Dakota can share the pain we Arrows fans used to live with

  8. Whitney’s lack of experience in this realm shows in the article in a couple of observations. First, he implies that legislators were swayed by robocalls from a special interest group. Most likely not the case since they get them all the time from all sorts of groups. Secondly, he assumes policy is made in a vacuum. The impending passage of the road funding tax increase was not likely being ignored by legislators as they considered yet another potential tax increase, local control or not. In working with legislators in Pierre in the past, I am confident that they reviewed the information from all sides (special interests, lobbyists, city interests, and the executive branch) and then individually made the decision that best represented their constituents.

    1. So, in a nutshell, your comments are based on observations – like Mr. Whiney’s – you’ve made over the course of the 2015 legislative
      session. And like Mr. Whitney, you are offering your opinion. Your opinion. Your. Opinion.

      1. you know, the point of this whole topic was that the headline and approach was inaccurate, worded in a way so as to present a false narrative about the tax and its trip through the legislative process. accurate: republicans differed. inaccurate: the republicans as a group smote it with a mighty smiting.

        1. In the main post for this topic, the author wrote this: ‘I’m scanning the morning news when I come across the latest incident of Media Malpractice. Stu Whitney’s awful headline, awful tag line, and somewhat slanted story: …’

          The keyword here is story. Mr. Whitney’s column is not a story. It’s a column (or editorial) containing Mr. Whitney’s opinion.
          For someone who likes ‘traditional’ journalism, you sure don’t understand it, enquirer.

          1. a journalist needs to journalize, and when giving a comment should ground that comment in an accurate fact and not a distortional joust with all the inflammatory reaction that it rouses. in short, you have rejected my reality and have substituted your own. i disagree and feel pretty sanguine about my views on what constitutes journalism.

            1. The reality is that I have a college degree in journalism and you are merely an arm chair journalism critic. Journalize? Seriously? You really are nothing but a troll.

              1. i have news reporting experience, and a bachelors in communications. sticks and stones baby.

  10. i’m not that smart. as pp and the regulars here who have actual knowledge could easily attest.

    1. i’m touched that enough people are annoyed with me for this question to come up. i just like traditional journalism, and to have real trolls call me a troll for dishing it back.

Comments are closed.