i've pretty much hated Scott's editorials so far, or perhaps it's fairer to say that I've pretty much hated two of them – the endorsement of the Midway industrial park and the admonition to Burchett (or whoever is elected county mayor) to watch his Ps and Qs when it comes time to hire a staff.

Others have covered the Midway issue and I don't have much more to add, except I hated the damn endorsement and found it dismissive of the opposition's case without presenting sufficient justification.
But nobody's talked about the Burchett editorial, which was as presumptuous as it was sanctimonious, coming from a news outlet that never uttered a peep when Ragsdale hired his fraternity brother to be chief of staff and allowed him to remain on County Commission where his bad behavior was of historic proportions. He kept his Oak Ridge job, too, triple-dipping on salaries for several years.
I know they didn't say nuttin about Arms bullying and threatening and even publicly cursing his commission colleagues in pursuit of the Ragsdale agenda because I was writing about it both in Metro Pulse and the Shopper and wondering when anybody besides Sandra Clark would do it too. The answer was never.
Anyhow, the analysis of Burchett's victory – which, speaking of historic proportions, was just that, regardless of what the KNS editorial opined – was essentially a back-of-the-hand dismissal founded on an unspoken thesis that Tim Burchett (or whoever is elected county mayor) is too dumb to hire a staff and ought to cede that responsibility to wiser, more politically-correct heads.

Others have covered the Midway issue and I don't have much more to add, except I hated the damn endorsement and found it dismissive of the opposition's case without presenting sufficient justification.

Really. That was the most poorly researched editorial.
If he was arguing for the park he could have done a bit more digging and found at least more honest, if no more convincing, arguments.
On the face of it the editorial conveys not much understanding of the issues involved and because of that it delivers a half-hearted argument.

(link...)

"The park will have its own septic system, which will restrict the types of tenants and avoid the need for a sewer line that could open up the region for a more sprawling development.

The arguments for the park are convincing. Knox County will have a need for large parcels of land for business recruitment but its ridges funnel development into narrow valleys."

This editorial established a new low. Have we ever seen an argument that septic is superior to sewer before this? That was a blatant insult to the intelligence of the people who read it.

Then Barker goes on to tell us the "arguments for the park are convincing". But fails to give us anything more than the most lame PR pablum. It is juvenile, and a further insult to the intelligence of the readers.

How a good writer can be such a poor editorial writer is inexplicable. The only thing I can think of is that Barker is being forced to write things he does not believe in.