AP articles reflect bias
If The T&D intends to continue using articles from The Associated Press, may I suggest that someone in the Orangeburg office apply an editorial blue pencil to some of the text in order to change its oft-quite-partial "reporting" to something resembling the relatively objective journalism for which many of those articles should be striving. I've noted, for some time, the increased use of weighted words that attempt to slant the view early in an article in a leftward/progressive Democratic direction.
Case in point: Monday, 1-20-20, p. A3, under the decent headline "Trump lawyers stress no crime."
The first half of the first sentence reads in part: "President Donald Trump's lawyers on Sunday previewed their impeachment defense with the questionable assertion that the charges against him are invalid. ..."
Obviously, the word "questionable" has no place in a true reportorial article as opposed to an opinion piece. It loads the bases against the Trump lawyers' side before the initial sentence is even completed.
The second half of the sentence -- "... adopting a position rejected by Democrats as 'nonsense' as both sides sharpened their arguments for trial" --is only marginally better, since the two clauses together amount basically to a statement of the House Democrats' position, rather than even attempting to depict a balanced view of the two sides.
The rest of the article, too, is heavily weighted toward the Democrats' side, but I suppose we should be happy that that weighting is so out front and heavy-handed that nearly anyone reading the piece will quickly realize the partisan press coverage into which he/she has wandered.
But then, really, the alert reader could have had no doubt about that from the moment he/she encountered that first sentence. Either writer Laurie Kellman or her AP editor needs to go back to journalism school ... assuming such institutions even continue to try to teach even-handed journalism. Failing that, The T&D needs to take more responsibility for the oft-one-sided pieces that have been coming out of the AP.
Roy Thomas, St. Matthews
Clean up the state
To Gov. Henry McMaster: I listened to your State of the State address with interest and good feelings about our state presently and the potential of our future. We have a wonderful state and I would not want to live anywhere else, but I can hardly bear driving anywhere in the state because of all the trash on our roadsides.
Our roads are filthy. I have approached you about this problem and your answer is that we do not have the money to clean up our state. Basically, we cannot afford to have our roads clean, but how can we afford not to clean up our state?
Why would any major corporation want to move to South Carolina when the citizens are content living with filthy roads? How much pride can there be in our workforce if we allow people to throw all their trash out of the windows of their cars?
You have free articles remaining.
You say that we do not have the money to clean up, but you just spent $700,000 sending out $50 rebate checks for a total of $65 million to taxpayers that could have helped with cleanup. Now you are proposing spending even more with a rebate of $200 for a total of $250 million.
Would our taxpayers really prefer to receive $200 in rebates or live in a state that they can be proud of? We have always been close to the bottom of the rankings in important issues like overall health and education and we are thankful for Mississippi for keeping us from being last.
Why don’t we spend $250 million on cleanup and be #1 at something -- the cleanest state in the Union? How much more industry would come to South Carolina if we could boast that we had the cleanest state in the nation.
Please do not send us rebate checks. Instead, put the money in a protected place and spend every penny of it on trash pickup, designated trash drop-off sites and roadside beautification. We will all receive much more than $200 in benefits in the long run.
O. Frank Hart, Columbia
I am writing to thank Orangeburg residents for sharing the true meaning of Christmas with children in need this past holiday season.
Because of the generosity of donors in Orangeburg and across the United States, Operation Christmas Child, a project of Samaritan’s Purse, collected more than 8.9 million shoebox gifts in 2019. Combined with those collected from partnering countries in 2019, the ministry is now sending 10,569,405 shoebox gifts to children worldwide.
Through shoeboxes — packed with fun toys, school supplies and hygiene items — Orangeburg volunteers brought joy to children in need around the world. Each gift-filled shoebox is a tangible expression of God’s love, and it is often the first gift these children have ever received.
Thanks to the generosity of donors, Operation Christmas Child has collected and delivered more than 178 million gift-filled shoeboxes to children in more than 160 countries and territories since 1993.
Thank you again to everyone who participated in this global project — many who do so year after year. These simple gifts, packed with love, send a message to children worldwide that they are loved and not forgotten.
Operation Christmas Child