Could someone at the Pee Dee-- the writer or one of the editors-- explain the purpose of this story to me?

1. Naymik's story isn't a profile of the candidate's background. There's only one paragraph (the seventh) that contains any information about Pavarini's education or work experience-- and the story seems to ridicule those ("On the campaign trail, his professional life translates nicely to "small business owner.")

2. The story doesn't explain Pavarini'a platform. It has only three sentences from him-- a joke in paragraph six and two sentences denying Naymik's contention that he isn't a serious candidate in paragraph 18.

There's a 36-word summary of what Naymik claims Pavarini says he would do if elected in paragraph 16, but no explanation of any specific steps, so the voter can't evaluate them. (Maybe he doesn't have any, but that isn't stated clearly.)

3. The writer displays an open but inarticulate contempt for Pavarini. Sentences like "A third person is also running but has done nothing to earn even a mention here." and "Taxpayers deserve an opponent, if for nothing else than to push Turner to raise his game. Unfortunately, Pavarini is not that opponent." suggest that Pavarini shouldn't be taken seriously, but don't explain why.

Paragraph 15 indicates that Pavarini has printed literature, does have campaign workers, is doing mailings, is knocking on doors and has targeted voters, which suggests that hes purchased a voter list of some type. It doesn't tell me how much money he has raised or spent, whether he has any paid staff, whether he is making phone calls-- or even if he has a phone, a web site or an office.

(By the way, it's normal for candidates-- especially in down-ticket races-- to open their offices shortly after Labor Day-- in other words, around now.)

The story mentions Pavarini "has little connection" to the "ranks of the Democratic Party who control city politics" but doesn't actually explain that designation. Couldn't the story have run a quote from some anonymous insider saying "Pavarini is a moron and you'd have to be crazy to want him elected", so there was at least some pretense that Naymik had done his homework? Also, why use "little connection", as opposed to "no connection"? What's the difference?

So what's the point of the article? My summary would be "Turner is lazy and doesn't give a rat's butt about doing his job" (which is correct), "However, Pavarini has no chance of winning and the other candidate isn't even running."

Even assuming the second sentence is correct-- which is very likely is; a challenger as unknown and seemingly as underfunded and understaffed as Pavarini has very little chance to beat a popular incumbent-- what does that to do with the question of whether Pavarini merits anyone's support?

Is Naymik trying to say "However lazy and corrupt you think Turner might be, Pavarini is so inept that electing him would probably make things worse?" Then present evidence to support that argument by giving Pavarini tough questions and presenting his vague or fumbling answers. Filing a 700-word piece, that is largely filled with 'background color', which maintains a fairly genial tone isn't adequate to support that logic.

If the truth is that Pavarini isn't a serious candidate, supply data to confirm it. Is his literature xeroxed, and amatuerishly designed? Does he have a web site? How many hours does he spend campaigning? Is his business self-sustaining, or is he living off family money (as Naymik implies).

If Naymik thinks Pavarini ia a well-meaning amateur, supply information to support that.

What we have here is an almost-fact-free word salad that can be used as evidence of good faith by the Pee Dee after Turner's next egregious scandal. "We tried to cover this race," Ted Diadiun's apologia for the paper not warning voters can state, "but, as Naymik's story shows, Turner had no effective challengers, so we couldn't."

I'm tired of reading "horse-race journalism" about the presidential race. One gets a steady diet of "Will Rick Perry or Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination?" stories, and virtually no pieces saying "Which candidate-- not merely those two-- is the most qualified to be president, based on his or her experience and position on the issues?"

I certainly don't need a piece like that for a local race.

Swarley - I'm not sure I understand your critique. You accurately summarize the piece, but I don't really think your analysis amounts to criticism. I think Naymik is a columnist now and not a political reporter, per se, so his column doesn't need to conform to a particular format of election story. It tells me everything I need to know about this guy's political viability, without spoon-feeding. It is answering "yes" to a number of your rhetorical questions (which makes me wonder why you are raising them). Trust me, there will be a more typical story on the candidates and their "platforms" (ha ha) that will be a snoozer.

This is well done and fun, especially for the reader who knows something about politics. It also makes a broader statement about the crappy candidates we often have to choose from. One more thought for you personally, if I may: Word economy. Look into it.

1. I don't know what Naymik's current employment status is. And is impossible for anyone reading a web site to determine whether something is a 'news story" or an "opinion column".

Especially when the piece is presented on the front page of the site as a "Must-see story"-- but the newspaper, if challenged, will claim that cleveland.com is not The Pee Dee and the same rules don't apply.

2. It's stupid and ultimately counterproductive for a newspaper to say "a columnist can present opinion without offering facts to support it, and reporters can't present opinion at all." Both result in the writer playing games, and the reader thinking the work product is trash.

This is one reason why newspapers are dying.

3. I critiqued the piece as a story, and none of my questions about it were rhetorical. I have no idea what the purpose of the piece was.

If this is an opinion piece, then it's complete trash. More than half the 694 words contain neither fact nor opinion. For someone who talks about "word economy" (and, by the way, the correct term would be either "brevity" or" conciseness"), you seem curiously unconcerned by the amount of filler Naymik filed (paragraphs #1, #2, #4, #5, $6, #10, #16, #17).

While I despite the politics of both Kevin O'Brien and Brent Larkin, at least their pieces make their positions and arguments clear. Naymik does neither. It's not clear whether Pavarini is a good candidate who is hopelessly unaware of how to run for office or someone who would make the situation in the Clerk's office worse.

4. I'm curious to know how anyone could write the following sentence with any degree of confidence: "Trust me, there will be a more typical story on the candidates and their "platforms" (ha ha) that will be a snoozer."

My experience reading newspapers leads me to assume that someone will file a piece 3-5 days before the election, but I wouldn't presume that to know its content.

the majority offer no value. What's the point of mentioning the make and model number of the truck, contain words contain virtually no statements. What's the point of detailing the make and model of the truck ,enno onor opinions-- lust a no useful opipiece that THere's What was the reason for detailing the make and model or
3.

aren't supported by