You can read a comment of mine on Ms McBride's blog. I'm surprised she allowed it through, as it is critical of her.
If she were a baseball player, she'd be a big star. She's batting .500 for my comments - while she let one through, she ignored the one I posted on her current top story.
The point? My comments are unmoderated. Confidence in one's position leads to that.
My comment was that while she drones on about rebuttals to rebuttals, she fails to realize many can play at that game. See the rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal at Illusory Tenant.
UPDATE: Charlie Sykes is a coward. He wrote a post Thursday on the "lead paint" case, and refused to post my comment leading his readers to this editorial from the conservative Green Bay Press Gazette. Can't stand having competing viewpoints on the right, can you, Sykes? Readers, suggestions welcome for what we should call Sykes on this blog. Since I'm the REAL Charlie Sykes.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Truth matters. Good journalism vs. Bad journalism
There's a big difference between the WisPolitics.com story about last night's Supreme Court debate, and the Associated Press story.
Lead from AP story: "State Supreme Court challenger Michael Gableman defended a campaign ad Friday that has been widely condemned for misleading voters about incumbent Justice Louis Butler's role in a case 20 years ago."
Lead from WisPolitics.com story: "Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman repeatedly attacked Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler as a judicial activist while touting his own conservative credentials Friday night in their final debate before next week’s election."
additional line from WisPolitics.com story (more than halfway through the story): "Gableman has come under fire from some quarters for an ad that featured Rueben Lee Mitchell, a sex offender Butler represented as a public defender more than 20 years ago."
Analysis: Reporters aren't supposed to just report all facts neutrally, when the facts themselves don't objectively lead to neutral conclusions. The AP story gets it right - the ad was "widely condemned." And the lead is also correct that this was the clearest and most important point of contention in the debate.
The WisPolitics.com story is terrible for many reasons. The whole set-up is Gableman attack, Butler response, Gableman attack, Butler response. The lead could have been written by the Gableman campaign. And worst of all, the words "under fire from some quarters" is incredibly underdescriptive of what happened. Even my best friend Charlie Sykes said the ad was "misleading" and "dumb." What actually happened. The most important fallout. The letters from the DA and the cops. Newsweek weighs in. Judges aren't so excited, and that is news.
To write this story and suggest that the ad was only under fire "from some quarters" is just bad journalism. Any bets on whether "McMedia Matters" will cover this?
UPDATE: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has the most balanced story. "Milquetoast," as others have described their coverage, but fair.
The lead is "In their final meeting before Tuesday's election, Justice Louis Butler and Burnett County Circuit Judge Michael Gableman engaged Friday in a sometimes-tense debate over their candidacies in the state Supreme Court race."
Which is, you know, factual. Down below, the twit's ad is described thus: "which many have called misleading." Again, much more reasonable than the WisPolitics.com story, although they buried the controversy fairly deep in the story.
Lead from AP story: "State Supreme Court challenger Michael Gableman defended a campaign ad Friday that has been widely condemned for misleading voters about incumbent Justice Louis Butler's role in a case 20 years ago."
Lead from WisPolitics.com story: "Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman repeatedly attacked Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler as a judicial activist while touting his own conservative credentials Friday night in their final debate before next week’s election."
additional line from WisPolitics.com story (more than halfway through the story): "Gableman has come under fire from some quarters for an ad that featured Rueben Lee Mitchell, a sex offender Butler represented as a public defender more than 20 years ago."
Analysis: Reporters aren't supposed to just report all facts neutrally, when the facts themselves don't objectively lead to neutral conclusions. The AP story gets it right - the ad was "widely condemned." And the lead is also correct that this was the clearest and most important point of contention in the debate.
The WisPolitics.com story is terrible for many reasons. The whole set-up is Gableman attack, Butler response, Gableman attack, Butler response. The lead could have been written by the Gableman campaign. And worst of all, the words "under fire from some quarters" is incredibly underdescriptive of what happened. Even my best friend Charlie Sykes said the ad was "misleading" and "dumb." What actually happened. The most important fallout. The letters from the DA and the cops. Newsweek weighs in. Judges aren't so excited, and that is news.
To write this story and suggest that the ad was only under fire "from some quarters" is just bad journalism. Any bets on whether "McMedia Matters" will cover this?
UPDATE: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has the most balanced story. "Milquetoast," as others have described their coverage, but fair.
The lead is "In their final meeting before Tuesday's election, Justice Louis Butler and Burnett County Circuit Judge Michael Gableman engaged Friday in a sometimes-tense debate over their candidacies in the state Supreme Court race."
Which is, you know, factual. Down below, the twit's ad is described thus: "which many have called misleading." Again, much more reasonable than the WisPolitics.com story, although they buried the controversy fairly deep in the story.
The Most Important Thing In Wisconsin
The Most Important Thing In The State right now is who will serve on the Supreme Court.
If Louis Butler was as liberal as they say, he would deserve a challenge. But a) he isn't, and b) his opponent is the biggest twit to be taken seriously as a political candidate since they let Ross Perot twang his way into 19% of American voters' hearts.
Issue 1 - If you have time, read iTenant.
Issue 2 - Tell everyone you know to vote for Louis Butler.
Issue 3 - If you tell someone to vote for Louis Butler, and they're not sure what to do, show them the twit's ads and Butler's ads. You can find all kinds of background information here.
If Louis Butler was as liberal as they say, he would deserve a challenge. But a) he isn't, and b) his opponent is the biggest twit to be taken seriously as a political candidate since they let Ross Perot twang his way into 19% of American voters' hearts.
Issue 1 - If you have time, read iTenant.
Issue 2 - Tell everyone you know to vote for Louis Butler.
Issue 3 - If you tell someone to vote for Louis Butler, and they're not sure what to do, show them the twit's ads and Butler's ads. You can find all kinds of background information here.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Basic Questions to start.
So, it's 2008, and this is the Web, not a mimeograph machine in 1983. Shouldn't a story like this have a picture or two? Witkowiak billboards replaced
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)