My Photo


Feeds and more

  • [ BadgerLink logo ]
Blog powered by Typepad


Uppity Wisconsin - Progressive Webmasters

« "A Christmas Story" Movie Set Now A Cleveland Tourist Attraction | Main | Retreating Republicans Scorch Earth, Poison Well »

December 08, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Another point:
Note the bias of the Journal. IWF is labeled as "liberal research group", but WMC is not termed a conservative group. Is it the policy of the paper to only characterize politically certain groups, but not others?
Fairness would seem to require that all groups are labeled, or none.
Is there a "liberal" version of the truth v. the truth?
And in only the fourth paragraph of Wednesday's front page story, the write is telling us who funds IWF. Is that what the story is about? The "bias" of the messenger? One would think you'd put that information at the end. Or write a separate story about the IWF.
To see how biased this reporting is, imagine a story about WMC releasing a report and in the fourth paragraph we learn where they get their funding. And, the group is labeled as conservative throughout the story. This doesn't happen.
But I guess we can't expect balance from the Journal. Surely you must have noticed they have a daily business section, but no labor section.
Lots of stories about investing and stock information, but nothing about union organizing. Of course, the average person is so wrapped up in Packer, Badger and Brewer mania so as to hardly notice anyway.


For some reason, the media treat WMC as though it is some kind of civic organization, not the special interest group it is.

During the recent election cycle, while other independent advocacy groups were characterized as "shadowy," the media didn't question WMC'S spending $2.5-million to defeat Kathleen Falk, or ask where the money came from. It wasn't dues money or out of the general fund. One thing we know for sure: It was corporate money. But which corporations were so afraid of Falk as AG that they gave $2.5-million?

Was it lead paint manufacturers, as one rumor has it? Cranberry growers? Polluters?

Until the media starts recognizing WMC for what it is -- one more interest group looking for handouts -- we'll never even read those questions, let alone the answers.

The comments to this entry are closed.