How to read and analyze the South Dakota media

Posted July 15, 2018 08:00:02 The South Dakota newspapers and magazines in the Golden Triangle are a small but thriving section of the state’s media industry.

Most are owned by newspapers and other publications with no editorial control over their content, but some, like the Sioux Falls Argus, have had significant editorial control for years.

The Argus’ editorial decisions are made by a small board of editors, and they are often influenced by what other media outlets are doing and what the local business community is telling them.

But as the newspaper business in South Dakota has evolved over the last decade, it’s become increasingly important for the Argus and other newspapers in the state to have an editorial line that reflects the community’s concerns and the opinions of their readers.

A few years ago, I started a new project, using data from The Daily Kos to understand how South Dakota’s newspapers and the state as a whole read the news.

I started by looking at how many times each of the Argos and the Sioux City Star reported on the shootings of police officers.

That data revealed a surprising pattern: The Argos reported on at least three shootings a day in 2015, the second-highest rate of any newspaper in the area.

That is only a fraction of the four times each newspaper reported on a shooting, but it is significant considering the fact that the newspaper industry in South Dakotas largest city is dominated by large newspapers like the Arguess.

To find out what other South Dakota newspapers were saying about the events of that day, I also looked at the newspaper’s coverage of the fatal police shootings of five other African-American men over the same period.

These deaths have been widely covered, but they have also been deeply personal for many of the men, and the police shootings have been covered extensively.

So I wanted to see how the Arguss and other South Dakota papers were reporting on the killing of five African-Americans over a three-day period in 2016.

What I found surprised me.

The majority of South Dakota newspaper coverage of these shootings focused on the police officer who was shot, but that was not the only story.

Most of the time, South Dakota police officers were not shot.

Most South Dakota journalists who cover police shootings say they do not believe the people in the street when they say that police officers are the perpetrators.

The police officers who have been killed were, in fact, armed, and a number of them were wielding weapons, according to The Arguress.

When the Argusa reported that three officers were killed, the newspaper also used graphic images of the officer and the weapon in question to make its point.

But, even though most of the journalists in the ArgUSA said that they believed police officers to be the perpetrators, they did not make a case for that belief in the majority of cases.

I wanted a better understanding of how the South Dakoteans view the shooting of police.

And that’s when I began to discover something that has become increasingly obvious to me as I have researched this topic.

The South Dakotic people view police killings as a matter of personal justice, rather than as a public safety issue.

It’s a pattern that extends to other police departments across the country, but not in South Africa.

For instance, in the U.S., the vast majority of police killings are not prosecuted, although some police officers have been charged with homicide and manslaughter.

The vast majority are not pursued, even if the charges are eventually dropped.

South Dakota does not use criminal justice as a method of public accountability.

The public has a right to know who killed who, and it’s the police officers themselves who should be held accountable for their actions.

And it’s not just the officers who are targeted for criticism in South African newspapers.

Many of the police who have killed have been accused of committing police brutality.

In South Africa, many of those police officers also serve as police commissioners, so the media is not only critical of the public, it is also critical of these officers.

The people who are killed in South America are often killed in a manner that is perceived as a crime, and this creates a climate that encourages the police to shoot and kill unarmed people, regardless of their legal status or whether the officer is facing charges.

A number of journalists and civil rights activists I interviewed for this story say they have noticed a similar pattern in South Africans.

“South Africa is very much a police state,” says David Pinder, a journalist with the South African Broadcasting Corporation and an author of several books on police killings.

“In South Africa people believe that the police are always there to protect them and to make sure that they are protected.

They are very much not interested in accountability.

That’s not the South Africans way.”

Pinder also notes that the media’s portrayal of the South American police is often inaccurate.

“When the police kill people, they are not trying to defend themselves,”

Why this photo of Donald Trump’s golf course went viral

From the moment Trump announced his candidacy for president in June 2015, the real estate mogul’s campaign made headlines for his extravagant, often racist and xenophobic rhetoric.

And as he has done every time he has won a presidential election, Trump has since been forced to backtrack from his comments.

In December, Trump said that the U.S. had “been a victim of a crime” and that his opponents “deserve to be shot,” and then later defended himself against accusations of racism by saying, “I’ve always treated people with respect.”

In February, he again attacked Mexicans as criminals and rapists, and in April, he told a rally in Pensacola, Fla., that he had “very good relationships with some Mexican people.”

On Tuesday, Trump issued an apology, telling reporters that he “did not mean to imply that there was a race problem in this country,” but that his comments were taken out of context.

“I never meant to imply I was against Mexicans.

I’ve always felt good about working with them.

I have very good relationships, and that’s why I’m here.

I don’t hate them,” Trump said.

“But I said things in the past that were wrong and that I was wrong.

I was very wrong about the first statement.

It was taken out.

It’s not true anymore.

And I regret it.

I apologized to everybody and I’m very, very sorry.”

Trump’s campaign has taken to calling the campaign’s latest comments a “clumsy and dangerous lie,” but some have accused the president of using race as a political wedge issue.

The campaign has since defended the candidate against the accusations, and Trump has doubled down on his comments that he was joking when he said that he wanted to shoot people that were “bringing drugs” into the country.

“This is not just an election issue.

This is an issue of immigration,” Trump told Fox News.

“It’s an issue that has to be addressed.

The president and I have been very good friends for many years, and I know his heart and his family very well.

He’s a great person and he’s very smart.

But you know, we have to fix our inner cities.

And he knows that.

He knows the people in the inner cities are dying.

We’re going to have to do something about it.

But this is an important issue that’s going to come to a head at some point.”””

And so we have some very good people with us.

But this is an important issue that’s going to come to a head at some point.””

There are some very talented people who are leaving, who are getting jobs in other countries, and they are getting rich, and now they’re saying that this is the country that has a problem.

This country has a race issue.

And that is ridiculous,” he added.