MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Saturday, December 27, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 36.0° F  Fog/Mist
Collapse Photo Bar

WSJ's misleading headlines...

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

WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:17 am

These guys are crazy...So the Senate Republicans decide to enforce a "law" that is not a law. A judge orders the administration to not implement the "law" that is not a law, and the Urinal has this..

"State to push ahead on law"

and the subtitle...

"Officials say they have obligation despite Judge's threat"

In the real world these headlines would read...

"Walker's administration chooses to break the law"

and...

"Partisan officials violate court ruling"

Since WHEN is a court order/ruling to uphold Wisconsin law a "threat?"

WSJ is pathetic... Just one in a long line of misleading headlines since this started.

Just a few days ago "Capitol confusion continues." They're breaking the law. There is nothing confusing about it.

WSJ's deliberate Obfuscation continues...
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby Crockett » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:24 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:Since WHEN is a court order/ruling to uphold Wisconsin law a "threat?"


I believe the branches of govt are equals.
Crockett
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:37 am

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby Mean Scenester » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:43 pm

Crockett wrote:
jonnygothispen wrote:Since WHEN is a court order/ruling to uphold Wisconsin law a "threat?"

I believe the branches of govt are equals.

So have you violated that restraining order brought against you for beating your wife?

Once again, you blather away without knowing whereof you speak. I am shocked ... shocked, I tell you.

Quick quiz question, moron: Of the three branches of government, which one gets final say when a law or policy is contested?

Idiot. Seriously, what a mouth-breathing fucking idiot you are, Crockett.
Mean Scenester
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jman111 » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:49 pm

Crockett wrote:I believe the branches of govt are equals.

I would suppose that you, like Jeff Fitzgerald, are concerned about the "attack" on the separation of powers of the three branches while neglecting to consider the concept of checks and balances.
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3126
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby snoqueen » Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:04 pm

Look, Crockett. I don't know where you were when they discussed the three branches of government in high school, but we can go over it again.

The three branches each function in different ways. You could say they are equal in that each has powers to check and balance the other two. But the way those powers are expressed differs by branch.

The legislative branch has the power to make laws, which puts a check on the judicial branch. The judicial branch enforces and interprets the laws, which means they take what the legislature does and make sure it's being followed. Where there are clashes between two laws (or their interpretations) its the judicial that sorts them out. The executive branch can sign or veto laws after the legislature votes on them. Without the executive signature, the law is not in effect. So the executive has a check over the legislature. At the federal level the executive picks judges and the legislature confirms (or denies confirmation). And so on and on. Each branch has powers over the others. Nobody is god.

That's how they're equal. They're interdependent. One could not function effectively without the other two.

Once you look it up on Wikipedia, would you be so kind as to explain it to Walker and the Fitzes? They aren't taking my calls these days.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11850
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby Justus in the Forest » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:59 pm

Speaking of the Wis. State Journal:
I'm getting the idea that there may be concern in high places there and perhaps at Lee Enterprises, which has its finger in the WSJ pie, not to mention about 20-30 other newspapers, about how their current circulation is going. Perhaps down?

I subbed to it, right after the Cap-Times went under, because as I told the sub person there, it is "the only daily paper in town", and I was interested in keeping up with the local news. Besides that, the C-T had that once a week thing going and I could get "the rest of the story" there.

After the s..t hit the fan in January, I started thinking to quit getting it and had been having ups and downs about it. It meant I wouldn't get the C-T, but then I noticed that the local Pn'Save had individual issues of the C-T on its stands.

A couple of weeks ago, WSJ called and asked me, since my renewal was nearing, whether I intended to in fact renew, to which I said yeah, I probably would. Today I was a-thinkin' again and just then the WSJ called (I got the renewal yesterday),and asked the same question. I said no, I'm not, then of course, I got the question: why not? I said because of your anti-teacher editorial policy. Oh, they try to pretend by playing both sides (for circulation purposes) since subs are used to set advertising rates, and as we all know adverts are the life and death of a newspaper.

I have a journalism degree (U. of Ill.), and will be 80 soon, a retiree from State Service. But I say screw 'em all and the horse they rode in on.
My daughter is graduating in May after a 5-year program for a Special Education degree (Cognitive Disabilities) and a degree in Spanish. The last time we talked, she mentioned leaving Wisconsin, after being here 23 years, but go where? Indiana, Ohio, Florida? She mentioned one place which seemed reasonable to me. Of course, we will miss her cause it's a good distance away.

Canada.
Justus in the Forest
Senior Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:29 am

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:52 am

I've over heard several people say they were canceling their subscriptions. I have a hard time walking by the boxes now w/o wanting to shove one in the street, lol. But it's just too disgusting to read now. They really over played their hand with their "Walker apologist" attitude.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:21 pm

Yesterday, something like "Collective bargaining LAW is double edged sword." Um, err, doesn't a bill have to pass legally, and be published legally, before it becomes a law? Or is this their clever way of saying, "Get used to it! Just accept it?"

It's this constant misrepresentation that's made me read only their headlines from now on (& the weather report), which is all many people who vote ever see...
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby gargantua » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:56 pm

I'd dump them in a heartbeat if there were a local daily alternative.
gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4395
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby Igor » Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:32 pm

I subscribed to the Capital Times for 20-25 years, until they went under. Their editorials were just that, editorials. I agreed with about 25% of them. Their endorsements were predictable and useless unless you were a straight line party voter.

The most annoying thing was the ridiculously slanted headlines. But it never bothered me enough to cancel the paper, through all those years.

Those of you that think the current State Journal is slanted may be correct - but they are an order of magnitude closer to the middle than the Cap Times ever was.
Igor
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 11:48 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby Justus in the Forest » Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:07 am

gargantua wrote:I'd dump them in a heartbeat if there were a local daily alternative.


I've given up on that reason because of the WSJ online news and the same for the weekly paper published here which is also online.

Another likely reason, but I had to think hard about this one before I dropped it, is to see what "the enemy" was saying. Not so much the WSJ general editorials, but columnists like Krauthammer, Goldberg, even David Brooks, Mike Nichols, Steve Chapman, et al, from the Right side.

And the WSJ could use a bit of transparency that they're so big on with government. Like identifying certain columnists not with only he/she writes for the New York Times or the Washington Post, but including "is an OPP-ED columnist for..."

Oh...and also I enjoyed reading the Letters especially the ones not in agreement with the WSJ. In the last couple of months, there's been a lot of those, ironically because WSJ "is the only daily paper in town."

They surprise every once in while, like endorsing Feingold, and I believe they're kinda in favor of gay rights. But their slogan "Wisconsin's Independent Voice" is much like Fox Opinion Channel's "Fair and Balanced" mantra.

Besides that, I'd be willing to bet that they're losing subs from more than one side of the political continuum, getting cancellations from the tea partiers, the Repubs, and the Conservatives--if there are any of the two latter groups still around. (I don't know what many people expressing their opinion nowadays can really be considered.)
Justus in the Forest
Senior Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:29 am

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby lolagirl » Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:13 am

Yesterday I made call and switched my sub from daily to Sunday only. The final straw for me was the first segment of their 6-part story on labor and unions.

The story http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/ ... 03286.html contained this paragraph early on:
"Yet, business leaders and conservatives say that weakening government employee unions in the state actually would be good for business and most other workers.
They argue public sector unions have a vested interest in increasing the size of government, which leads to higher taxes and stifles business growth and personal spending. Moreover, public employee unions help elect the very officials who negotiate their contracts, leaving no one looking out for the taxpayers, they say.
"You can't run a budget where the first dibs on tax dollars is for public pensions that are way over scale," said Richard Epstein, a New York University law professor who opposes public sector unionization."

Now, that's a fair quote. But what wasn't fair was that the authors of this piece never felt the need to provide a quote supporting a different opinion. There was no quote from a pro-labor expert citing the concern over the business and corporate lobbyists and PACs buying their way into government - that same government that then regulates and passes laws affecting them. Nor was there any input from the reporter to provide an assessment of the validity of the quote by, oh, maybe providing a breakout of the amount spent on elections by unions and comparing it to the amount spent by corporate interests.

Instead, this piece of anti-union opinion was stated and left unchallenged, making it appear to be fact.

And that, for me, was it. Oh, and yet another cynically snide dismissive piece from Chris Rickert.

In addition to canceling my daily sub, I sent a long email to the paper explaining why. I suggest that all of us downsizing or canceling do the same.
lolagirl
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:59 am

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:47 am

And what was the sub-article title a couple days ago, "Most people say 'tax the rich' " only to find that "most" is almost 2/3rds. just using "most" usually suggests just over half. Kudos that they even printed that article...

A misleading headline is important because "most" people only glance at the headline, and go from there. I'm focusing on the headline so I can stay as out of tune with the truth as "most" people. "Some people say" that WSJ's constant use of misleading headlines makes them a milder version of the FOX Republican entertainment channel.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby athabasca » Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:33 pm

My household cancelled our WSJ subscription right after "The Travesty that is now Act 10 only not in Effect 'cause it's Held Up in Court" was introduced in February.

I went out with a flaming LTE, which they printed but took out the bit about how we were cancelling because "endorsements have consequences."

We'd been subscribers for 12 years.

I bet there are plenty of others like us.
athabasca
Senior Member
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:00 pm
Location: location, location!

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:44 pm

lolagirl wrote:
"Yet, business leaders and conservatives say that weakening government employee unions in the state actually would be good for business and most other workers..." said Richard Epstein, a New York University law professor who opposes public sector unionization."

Now, that's a fair quote. But what wasn't fair was that the authors of this piece never felt the need to provide a quote supporting a different opinion...
^This inspired me to read part 4 today just to see if they misled again...

"...Walker's push to end collective bargaining... touched such a nerve" by making it harder to enter today's "middle class." "Touched a nerve????" Nothing about the reverse Robin Hood policies forcing the middle class to redistribute their paychecks to the top. Nothing about how campaign contributions influence politicians to go along with these policies, or any other explanation. It just "touched a nerve."

My, my, what sensitive, picky people these working Americans who are getting screwed out of what's left of their paychecks are! Fussy!

Then to boot-strap what fussy people these public sector union workers are, WSJ quotes a Tea-Bagger who has no idea that her tax burden actually comes from unsustainable wars, unsustainable corporate tax breaks and welfare programs, unsustainable tax loopholes for the top 1%, but instead blames her taxes only on public sector unions. WSJ never even mentions that she's getting a deal since public sector union employees make almost 5% less when you include all benefits, than equivalent private sector jobs requiring the same qualifications. Nor does WSJ mention that the increased benefits for the public sector was a trade off for lower salaries, and hence WSJ allows or promotes a total mischaracterization.

They even allow the Tea-Bagger to suggest that destroying a significant chunk of what's left of the middle class will make a stronger middle class. Next week in WSJ, "Water's not wet."

WSJ's message again, "Bend over working Wisconsinites, wealth redistribution to the top is here to stay, so get used to it."

Then they allow Scot-tea to make the same claim w/o any counter opinion. There's nothing about the increased payroll taxes that affects the low and middle classes far more than the top, nothing about the nearly double state and local tax rates for the bottom 20% compared to the top 1% (The national average for State and local taxes that the bottom 20% pay is 10.2%, while the top's is 5.4%, as a %-age of income), just nothing.

Why didn't they quote the non-partisan CBO figures showing the wealth redistribution to the top since 1979? The charts show exactly what's happening, but perhaps the charts are too honest for WSJ's tastes.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02 ... hart-graph

WSJ again quotes the opinion of someone hit by Walker's plan and supports it with "The disparity between the rich and the poor will become more pronounced...carries weight with SOME historians and economists" suggesting that a few people think it's valid. Why not just suggest that gravity is still a theory?

WSJ could actually show that breaking the unions in the 80's, Reagan's tax increases on the lower classes, and tax breaks for the top actually did widen the gap between the rich and the poor, which is essentially Walker's and Ryan's plans. That the gap between the rich and the poor will widen if Walker's plan goes through is not just a "theory" as WSJ suggests, it's a demonstrable fact. (Psst, the sun is hot)

Then, WSJ says that a study "by the left-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund... purported to find a direct correlation between a thriving middle class and a strong union presence." Again, this is easily proven, but WSJ suggests that it's not proven and adds the non-qualifier "left-leaning," which is code for saying they may have used specious information to get a preconceived result. Why wasn't the Tea-bagger quoted described as "right-leaning, pro-corporation?"

Ah, the hidden messages in WSJ's code language...

And then they leave everyone with a 'you can trust the government to regulate public sector wages properly' but 'you can't trust the government' to regulate industry because "As long as the free market is allowed to flourish...that's the system that will build the middle class in Wisconsin, not a tax-payer-funded government job" from an expert of their choosing.

Sir expert, an unregulated free-market with no government regulation is what brought us this economy, and hence the very problems you were allowed to pretend you are an expert on.

The overall message of the whole article is nearly total bullshit with a few bones thrown in the opposite direction to feign neutrality. People who read no further would agree that public sector unions need to go, and too bad for the workers who benefit from them. WSJ continually peddles this kind of horseshit under the guise of actual news reporting. It's sickening.

(grammar edit)
Last edited by jonnygothispen on Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Next

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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