Misunderstanding

I guess I'm just a "dumb cowboy." I came across this and just don't understand it.<br />n<br />n<a href="http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/06/23/build/state/35-school-spending.inc">School spending below average between '97 and '02</a><br />n<br />nWhy this just sounds horrendous. So I read the article. It turns out that "State and local spending <u><i>increases</u></i> for public education in Montana fell slightly below the national average of 17 percent between 1997 and 2002." Now I highlighted and underlined the increases part. I am not real sure how you can say our spending was below average when just the increase in spending was below average. Maybe the amount we spent was above average before hand and we still are spending above average. I don't know, but it sure enough can't be gleaned from the data provided so how can it be stated our sending was below average? Just a headline out to grab attention.<br />n<br />nI remember being told while I grew up, "if everybody jumped off a bridge would you do it too?" The same applies here. Just because everybody else increrased spending by 17% does that mean we all need too? Maybe we are more effecint with iour money and we don't need these increases? I don't have the answers but I really hate alarmist headlines that don't represent the facts. They stink.<br />n<br />n<b>Journalism is popular, but it is popular mainly as fiction. Life is one world, and life seen in the newspapers is another. Gilbert K. Chesterton</a>