It's far easier to criticize than to create. You may be able to find obvious flaws in someone else's work, but could you step into their shoes and do a better job than they? It's a fair question -- and probably one that Razorback fans should consider as they lambast those gosh-darn sons of a biscuit who officiated the debacle against Auburn last Saturday.

So while this post is basically pure criticism (and don't worry, I won't gripe any more about football than I already have), I want to at least attempt not to act like a self-satisfied prig who gets his kicks from kicking a bigger media outlet. It will be up to you to judge whether I succeed in that attempt.

Having said all that, the Southwest Times Record's article on Gary Stubblefield (the GOP candidate for state House, District 67) in last Saturday's paper was just a wee bit ridiculous.

[Let me pause and make one of them full disclosure dealies: I've known Stubblefield all my life and he was my Sunday school teacher for a long time. So I'm definitely biased in his favor.]

You can click and read the whole thing, but basically, the "story" was as follows:

1. Stubblefield sent out a campaign mailer referencing his stance for "Main Street Arkansas values."
2. Accompanying that phrase was a picture of downtown Van Buren.

So there you go. Obviously, given those facts, an article that exposed Stubblefield's folly was just burning to be written.

Oh, wait. You don't see how those two facts merit an article? Neither do I.

But the Times Record detected what you and I missed. And here's what we missed: Van Buren isn't in Stubblefield's district. That means, of course, that only the state representative who represents Van Buren should be using its imagery in campaign mailers. If you use a picture of a town that isn't in your district, that's got to be borderline campaign fraud. Deceiving the voters, at any rate.

OK, enough with the sarcasm.

Rusty Garrett was the Times Record reporter who wrote the story, though I doubt it was his idea. He managed to track down the director of the Van Buren Convention and Visitors Bureau for her comment. I'm just guessing, but I think she was bewildered to be called for a comment on something so petty. You can almost hear the what-the-heck in her voice when, in the story, Garrett tells her about the mailer and she responds, "Isn't that interesting."

Stubblefield, for his part, responded well, and to the Times Record's credit, his response is included in the story:

He said the mailer talks of Main Street Arkansas values and the picture could represent any Main Street. "It may not be in my district, but as a legislator, I still represent Arkansas. In a round-about way, I represent every city in Arkansas," he added.

"I don't see the relevance of it," he said, saying he has had only positive reaction to the mailer and no questions about the photograph or what town it depicted.

No kidding. Apparently Stubblefield's constituents, if they noticed the Van Buren picture at all, felt that it was a nice reference to traditional Arkansas values. Especially since downtown Van Buren is commonly associated with the Arkansas of yesterday.

Bottom line: Even it it had been inappropriate (it wasn't), Stubblefield's use of Van Buren imagery was a non-story. Certainly not worth putting on the front page of the newspaper and listing as the top story on the paper's website, as the Times Record did.

In case you're curious, here are some stories that appeared in the paper that day but weren't judged important enough to surpass Stubblefield and land on the front page:

• "Hopefuls Report Campaign Cash"
• "Police Say Fleeing Man Hid Out in Manhole"
• "Suspected Gang Member Wanted"
• "Four Quakes Hit Faulkner County"

There have been plenty of political controversies and ethical allegations about candidates this year. Some politicians have been accused of receiving state funds to help run their campaigns, others of not paying taxes on their state vehicles, others of disenfranchising voters and then helping to kick out a competent U.S. attorney in order to take his place. There are much bigger potatoes to fry than Stubblefield's Mailergate.

So why did the paper give such a high profile to such a non-story? It's not my place to say. I've heard rumors, but I don't know for sure.

So I'll just point out how ridiculous the story was, and leave it at that. I won't attack the Times Record's motives, won't claim they were out to get anybody. As for the refs and replay officials at Jordan-Hare Stadium last Saturday, well, that might be another story.