Tell me. Has anyone done a content analysis of right-wing reporting and blogging sites to compare them to left-wing site for how often they link to other sites for conformation, and for how near the key sites reporting on the actual events are to what really happened? Historians call that looking for original sources - the logic is the same.

My experience is that left wing sites cite others as they analyze. Right wing sites very rarely link so they are providing Limbaugh-style unsupported opinion. Which one do you think is most likely to be fact-based? When the facts are verifiable, all the reader has to do is check the logic. Logic is a process that is available to most rational readers. Verified facts are harder to obtain. Opinion and propaganda is not an adequate substitute for verified facts.

Leftist fact-based analysis versus right wing opinion and propaganda --- does that discredit the leftist groups?

I'm curious about the $25,000 Goodwill payment under assets which is besides the $ 110,000 "no compete" agreement, a continued lease for off site storage, and retaining Ms Ross in employment as a pharmacist.

Thank you for the info which puts the sale in a different light. One, the Rosses stored inventory in a warehouse which explains why inventory was so high. Two, USA Drug valued the patient files at $155k.

I think what Politico and Pro Publica might not have considered was whether the total purchase price was reasonable in light of the pharmacy's annual revenue and profitability.

In the sale of assets, an already agreed-upon purchase price is allocated between the assets purchased based on fair market value. In reality, the allocation is usually geared towards minimizing taxes. For example, USA Drugs ascribed a value of $165k to the pharmacy's patient files which is written off over a period of time as opposed to $165k in goodwill which is not tax deductible.

Along the same line, the allocation of the purchase price to land and buildings may have been inflated for tax purposes. But that doesn't mean the total purchase price was inflated, just misallocated. Is that big deal, taxwise? Not really since these are estimated values.

Manta.com estimates the pharmacy's annual revenue is about $1.2 million. Maybe the pharmacy nets $200k in net profit. If that's true, the next question is whether the $1.4 million total purchase price was fair. A 5-6 year payback period is not unusual.

I think Politico and Pro Publica should have conducted more research before publishing the story. Some comparison to the going rate for small pharmacies in Arkansas would have been helpful.

...well I guess you should have stayed out of politics, especially since it seems like you are easily bribed.

I suspect that's why he got into politics in the first place.

If you read his personal finance disclosure report for 2008, ross Pharmacy Inc. is the entity that sold the assets and received the proceeds from the sale. For tax purposes, Ross Pharamcy Inc. declares a dividend each year so the Rosses can draw their profit out over time. Nothing sinister here.

As I wrote in a previous comment here, Politico and Pro Publica do not appear to have evaluated the totoal purchase price of the pharmacy for reasonableness.

Mike Ross is wrong on healthcare but I don't think he is a corrupt politician based on the evidence presented so far.