MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Thursday, October 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 42.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

WSJ's misleading headlines...

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:19 pm

2 items...

The headline a few days ago "Union support could hurt Falk." That might be interesting in boring times, but the Republican legislature just ramrodded a bunch of negative legislation through including rescinding equal pay laws for women doing equal work...

Certainly more headline worthy, but I didn't see anything about that in the paper at all.

3-7-12 "Judge blocks state's voter ID law"
Interesting for 2 reasons. The "state" didn't push, promote or pass the law, partisan republican hacks did. I think the detail is otherwise pretty good save for the emphasis on the judge's signing of the recall petition. And since they made that an issue, WSJ could obviously see that as important enough to include more independent opinions from legal scholars, not political hacks, so people know that the judge's decision is valid, which it most certainly is. By putting an emphasis on the Judge's desire to recall Walker without making it clear that he's absolutely following the law makes it obvious that it was more of a diversion designed to inflame emotions than anything else.

The other problem with printing it is that far too often WSJ cannot find it within themselves to publish far more valid rebuttals to outlandish Republican claims (lies really).

This is why I feel WSJ is more suitable for potty training pets... before you read it, just to give it proper context.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby gargantua » Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:43 pm

INteresting assumption by one of the commenters in the article that Flanagan's decision to sign the recall petition "probably" showed he was biased because he has a bias against Walker.

OK then. Anyone who DIDN'T sign the petition must be biased in favor of Walker, right? So every Wisconsin judge must recuse him/herself from hearing anything relating to Walker.
gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4170
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:45 pm

Oh THAT settles it! ...not to mention their voting patterns, or just the fact that signing the petition is his right. And, unlike the voter suppression law, drum roll please... it's legal!
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:06 pm

Read this headline:
Summer-like weather could be cut short earlier than previously forecast

Then click on the link and read the very short article.

Can anyone tell me how the headline is supported by the "news" report?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19993
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby bdog » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:11 pm

That is a misleading headline indeed.

Unless the previous prediction was for weather in the high 70's from now until September.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:29 pm

Oh, brother.. From the "news" paper that endorsed Joseph McCarthy... twice.
3-27-2012 page 3
"Six State Journal staffers signed recall petitions" or as Tail gunner Joe once said...
"I have here in my hand a list of 205 (6 State Journal staffers) —a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State (Editor) as being members of the Communist (RECALL) Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping (photo images) policy in the State Department (News room)."

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/ ... 3ce6c.html

Smalley said the newspaper considers signing a petition of any kind a violation of the company's ethics policy. A portion of the code reads: "Participation in public affairs or events that may leave the impression that news judgment is being influenced by activism is prohibited."
That's an interesting ban, Mr. Smalley. When a writer on your staff actively participates in writing a willfully partisan article, as is so often the case at WSJ, and you condone it, you and your staff are violating your alleged ethical code.

Aren't ALL of your opinion pieces based on activism of one sort or another. Perhaps you should rewrite your "ethics" code as allowing "participation in only the kinds of activism we approve of."

This could also bar any of your employees from voting in any election since they make their political decisions based on the political activism of the candidates.

Further, the right to a free press was won by people who participated in the most extreme political activism there is: war.

"We were surprised and disappointed," Smalley said of finding the staff members' names by searching a database of signatures at iverifytherecall.com. "We apologize to our readers for the lapse in judgment by several staff members."
If only you sincerely meant that and it started to reflect in the writing & coverage itself...

Should an employer have the right to bar employees from participating in constitutionally protected political activities? WSJ policy is arguably a violation of the spirit of the Wisconsin Constitution:
No political committee, and no member or employe thereof, no candidate for and no incumbent of any office or position under the constitution or laws, or under any ordinance of any town or municipality of this state, shall ask for, or accept, from any person, association, copartnership, or corporation, or use, in any manner, or for any purpose, any free pass or frank, or any privilege withheld from any person, for the traveling accommodation or transportation of any person or property, or the transmission of any message or communication."
Banning association with selective political activities "privilege withheld from any person", while allowing others they approve of, is a decision based on biased influence in and of itself.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:55 am

Pathetic... 2 days of "ho-hum" headlines about democratic candidates who are trying to replace Walker. Wednesday 4-11: "Some worry the battle leading up to the May 8th contest (recall election) may bloody the the party and the candidate who emerges" RE: this is what you should look for since we are and even wrote a feature article about it. Remember "Union support may hurt Falk"(days after the GOP legislature passed the initial step to rescind equal pay for women which wasn't reported) Union support is Falk's strength, actually, but hey we can't miss a chance to project ill will on the unions. Likewise this.

Then 4-12: "Few Differences exhibited," which could've been a headline for any of the Republican primary debates, but saved for the Democrats... "Butttttt we're NOT Partisan!" afterall, the "candidates did show some variation..."

And today, 4-13, in the featured editorial, just a couple weeks after telling us the voters shouldn't have the right to recall Walker "...we're opposed to all recalls," WSJ has reversed it's position when it comes to the mostly liberal Dane County board of supervisors, and now wants to empower the voters to not just recall them, but to eliminate many of their positions altogether.

Their bias is so routine that they can't even recognize their open and obvious hypocrisy.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Sun May 20, 2012 11:04 am

5-20 Editorial "Endless Recalls hurt Wisconsin" The headline alone... Never mind that recalls have slowed down the extremist agenda of the Fascist (using Mussolini's definition) Republican Assembly/Senate dogma. Never mind the extremism of the administration that in and of itself drummed up support for a recall. And again, WSJ focuses on collective bargaining as the only "real" reason the recall came to naught thereby dismissing all of the other concerns completely w/o "reason" for any comment at all. But lets look at that for just a minute.

WSJ has run nearly an endless stream of articles criticizing unions, demonizing trivial things in feature editorials like Doug LaFollette throwing his hat in the ring, and Mike Tate because of an offhand comment he made about Scott Walker that didn't make them feel good though Tate's main point was extremely legitimate: criticizing Major League Baseball for firing the arbitrator who sided with Ryan Braun because the league broke it's own rules. So we have the focus on the unions, a special interest group for labor. So, if WSJ is truly independent as they claim, where are the running stream of articles criticizing the special interests of the Koch brothel? Where are the feature editorials on how cutting education by $1.3 to $1.85 billion has hurt it, hurts our kids, and how federal funds this year helped mitigate Walker's cuts but won't this next school year? Or feature articles on Wisconsin's actual debt, nearly identical to what Walker inherited (where did the $2.6 billion he cut go?)-perhaps the biggest single issue and lie of Walker's campaign? Or feature articles on the 12 people granted immunity and/or the only reason Scot-Tea is allowed to create a legal defense fund and why he won't answer why he created it. Where is the feature article showing job growth under Jim Doyle's policies and budget for the first 6 months of 2011, and how Walker is taking credit for these job gains despite that we lost jobs in 8 out of the next 10 months after his budget became law? All of these are more important (and even far more so during a recall election run up), current issues than something Mike Tate said, or Doug LaFollette did or didn't do (along with numerous other tangential editorials they regularly publish).

"Endless recalls hurt Wisconsin" has never been countered with "Endless extremist partisan agenda is actually hurting Wisconsin and benefiting outside special interests." And not once in the article does WSJ actually say how a recall hurts Wisconsin other than to say politicians are too busy raising cash than running Wisconsin. The facts show that "running Wisconsin" the current Republican way is far more harmful than not running it. Perhaps the facts are just to difficult for them to face.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby DCB » Sun May 27, 2012 12:47 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:5-20 Editorial "Endless Recalls hurt Wisconsin" The headline alone...
"Endless recalls hurt Wisconsin" has never been countered with "Endless extremist partisan agenda is actually hurting Wisconsin and benefiting outside special interests." And not once in the article does WSJ actually say how a recall hurts Wisconsin other than to say politicians are too busy raising cash than running Wisconsin. The facts show that "running Wisconsin" the current Republican way is far more harmful than not running it. Perhaps the facts are just to difficult for them to face.

I thought the editorial was offensive. This letter-to-the-editor is pretty well written; I hope its OK to post in its entirety.

Dennis L. Dresang wrote:The recall process is inappropriate for purging politicians for illicit behavior. If someone — including a public official — is accused of a crime, he or she is entitled to the systematic presentation of charges, evidence and argument used in impeachments and in courtrooms. The accused should not be tried using campaign techniques.

Recalls are part of checks and balances in our system of governance. Elected officials who enact major public policies by ignoring democratic norms and procedures are appropriately vulnerable to recall.

Those who repeal the fundamental rights of citizens to bargain collectively and who seek to suppress voting should be subject to recall. Lawmakers who pursue agendas dictated by outside powers rather than what they promised in their own campaigns lose public trust and should lose their opportunity to serve.

Recalls are unusual, and Wisconsin places more barriers to having a recall election than the other 17 states that have this check on officials. It is inaccurate to assert that recalls are or will be endless, and disrespectful to refer to them as a circus.


Read more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinio ... z1w5pZckdh
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby Henry Vilas » Sun May 27, 2012 1:00 pm

I remember Dresang from my undergrad days at UW (poli. sci. was one of my majors). From his UW bio: "Dennis Dresang is Professor Emeritus of Public Affairs and Political Science and Director of the Center on State, Local, and Tribal Governance. He is also founding Director of the La Follette School of Public Affairs." He knows of what he speaks.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19993
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Sun May 27, 2012 4:24 pm

Another bizarre comment from the sanctimonious harps at WSJ: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinio ... f887a.html

Braun is hardly a poster boy for the proletariat. He's deep into the 1 percent category of incomes that Tate's political party wants to punish.
While they fully back punishing Public sector workers who will actually feel the pain of wage reduction, unlike the 1%. The Marxist reference is cute too. Where do they find these guys?
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby gargantua » Sun May 27, 2012 8:07 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:I remember Dresang from my undergrad days at UW (poli. sci. was one of my majors). From his UW bio: "Dennis Dresang is Professor Emeritus of Public Affairs and Political Science and Director of the Center on State, Local, and Tribal Governance. He is also founding Director of the La Follette School of Public Affairs." He knows of what he speaks.

We must be very close to being contemporaries. I too have a great deal of respect for Mr. Dresang. This is a man who measures his words carefully, which is something I aspire to but all too often fail at.

One thing I marvel at it is the level of disrespect the Wisconsin State Journal has for so many of its subscribers. Lucky for them I so look forward to the Cul de Sac comic. They're becoming more expendable by the day.
gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4170
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby bdog » Sun May 27, 2012 8:43 pm

The Lord says judge not.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby Detritus » Sun May 27, 2012 9:32 pm

bdog wrote:The Lord says judge not.

Judge not, lest ye be judged. It's not a command, but a warning. Basically, the godly version of "what goes around, comes around."
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed May 30, 2012 10:55 am

Last Sunday, Clay Barbour of WSJ wrote a feature article supporting Walker by using the misleading figures the Walker campaign came up with to show that the budget is "balanced" by wiping out a "$3.6 billion" debt.

To create the $3.6 billion debt, Clay uses the same speculative figure Walker is using that is based on what Government agencies are asking for in the next fiscal year. The figure is not based on actual spending, or debt.

Then for the "wiped out the debt" idea, Clay uses the State's standard accounting method, which still isn't Wisconsin's actual debt because it doesn't include Wisconsin's credit card expenditures.

Using this method on former Governor Jim Doyle shows he handed Walker a "balanced budget."

An easier way of looking at it is this: Walker "Wiped out the debt" because he didn't give State agencies what they asked for. This is the essence of how Walker and WSJ are misleading the entire State. None of their figures are based on actual spending or Wisconsin's actual debt.

But when you use the SAME accounting standard for both (let's use the GAAP since it's the actual debt without accounting gimmicks), Wisconsin's debt was $2.7 billion when Walker took office and is $3.02 billion now.

Lying to the State of Wisconsin like Clay Barbour is doing is the equivalent of ballot stacking or electronic election theft. At least we can understand who these people are.

I make that accusation because he responded to an email justifying the big deception, and made a false statement in support of Walker~ "Walker wants us to use the GAAP figures!"

Gee Clay, that must be why Walker ISN'T using them in his campaign ads. Geez!
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar