This should be obvious to someone with even an elementary math education. 25% of 1.4 million is 350,000 people, in a state of 5,600,000 people. Put in other terms, 1 out of every 15 or so residents of the state would be working at Wal-Mart.

I agree, the whole fact-checking slam against bloggers doesn't hold water.

There's a grudging correction in the 8/16 Daily Disgrace.

I had the same reaction to the 25% figure Bill. So, WalMart is exactly average - even with all those part-timers they are criticized for. Unforturnately, the bad statistics get twisted even further. I had a man recently tell me that a "certain company" accounted for one fourth of TennCare enrollees with 39K. I had to tell him if he was speaking of WalMart that they only had 39K employees total in the state. The mindset is amazing to me that for some reason WalMart should be responsible for purchasing health insurance for all its workers - that somehow if WalMart didn't exist those part-timers wouldn't still be on TennCare because it is their cheapest alternative and best insurance available (not to mention they may not have a job). I always wonder where these folks have worked part-time that provided them with full, paid medical benefits.

http://walmartfacts.com/community/article.aspx?id=199

So Wal Mart is no worse or no better than the rest of the employers in Tennessee. As Rosanne Rosannadanna would say "NEVER MIND"

I agree that the piece comes out lame now, but I think I could have written a compelling piece with the correct numbers.

But my real concern is with the sloppiness of the Tennessean. It was a better paper when we had the Banner. (Yeah, the Banner was conservative, but I liked it anyway.)

There's always the hope that the Daily Disgrace will eventually be a better paper because of bloggers.

Thanks for the link.

Last week the Daily Disgrace reported the tragic death of two Salvation Army employees. The reporter wrote the accident occurred at "an unmarked railroad crossing" in south Nashville. Meanwhile in the next column was a picture of rescue workers in the background and a railroad crossing sign prominently in the foreground.

When notified of the total miscommunication between the obviously sight-deficient reporter, the photographer and (possibly) an editor, the response was, "We will check into it." A buried clarification ran two days later.

The amazing thing to me is to look back at our history and imagine how different things would have been had we had an honest alternative to the major media outlets. How much went unchecked and unchallenged--accepted as fact because it was in the papter. I remember back in the 80s when I was interviewed by a reporter for the first time. Up until that story ran, I thought when you saw quotation marks around words, it might that was what the person said. To my amazement, I discovered those marks meant it what the reporter interpreted the person to have said. I wasn't exactly an uncritical news consumer prior to that, but it was an eye-opening experience to say the least!