Rotten has more good analysis (see our earlier take here) of the D&C’s editorial today on Kuhl’s Brazilian trip. The D&C writes:

Learning how Brazil used ethanol to replace 40 percent of its gasoline supply has merit. Remember, Brazil declared itself independent of Mideast oil in 2005.

Whether Kuhl actually needed to go to Brazil, where sugar cane is used to make ethanol, is quite another story. After all, sugar cane can’t be grown in New York state.

Rotten quite rightly responds:

So which is it, guys? Is a trip to Brazil relevant or not? If you don’t have an opinion on the core justification for the trip, why did you write about it in the first place?

[....]

The only thing that’s clear from the D&C’s editorial is that they think there’s something distasteful about the whole discussion. The term “sniping” is used twice, which implies that the story is only on the editorial page because Massa keeps bringing it up. This ignores the fact that the Washington Post was there first, and it’s also a red herring. Massa’s reaction has no bearing on whether Kuhl’s trip was worthwhile. But the D&C is so afraid of appearing to criticize Kuhl that they have to criticize Massa to balance things out.

In another post, Rotten mentions that the Corning Leader has a much better editorial on the trip in today’s paper:

Reader Elmer sends todays’ Corning Leader Insider column [pdf] on Randy Kuhl’s junket. The author of the column is a retired Leader reporter who obviously had some fun writing the piece. At least when you’re done reading it, you know where the guy stands, which is a nice counterpoint to today’s leaden, wishy-washy D&C editorial.

Related posts:

1. The Boys in Brazil - D&C to readers - back off Kuhl because Democrats went too
2. Channel 13 piece on Kuhl Brazil trip and other Kuhl-related stuff
3. Final cost estimate on Randy Kuhl’s Brazil trip
4. Massa / Kuhl discussion in “The Leader”
5. Don’t go chasing waterfalls