Friday, September 22, 2006

All the news that fits our point of view

All in a day's work for Journal Sentinel editors:

THURSDAY, Sept. 21, 2006, 1:05 p.m. , JS Online:
Justice Department: Green transfer illegal

Friday morning paper:
Green heads to court over sanction

The news, of course, is not that Green is going to court. That was reported last week.

The news is not that a Doyle lawyer lobbied some members of the Elections Board, although Steve Walters managed to start today's story with that. It was reported yesterday.

The new development was that the state Dept. of Justice argued that all of the $1.3-million Green transferred from his federal account was illegal, except for $43,000 he could transfer from one committee to another. Previously, only $467,000 in political action committee money had been questioned.

The online story made that point. But by morning all was back on track in the JS newsroom, where everything Jim Doyle does is wrong and everything Mark Green does is just peachy.

UPDATE: Jay Bullock on the JS' campaign narrative.

Gretchen Schuldt, a former JS reporter, notes a little inconsistency.


At 8:35 AM, Blogger GWC shadow said...

Doyle must have bribed Peg with free drink tickets at any Indian Casino. Come one Bill. This is all proof that Doyle, Peg and the Madison Democrats are all corrupt. Judge Neiss envolved also in this mess. No one seems to mention that he's a Doyle appointie. He'll rule against Green because you lib can't win on ideas.

At 9:00 AM, Blogger Other Side said...

Come one?


At 10:40 AM, Blogger Interloper said...

Given their repeated decisions to minimize or failt to report misconduct by Congressman Green and to maximize allegations against Governor Doyle, it's pretty clear that the news editors at the Journal Sentinel have a Republican bias. So much for the liberal media!

The Republicans constantly chirp about supposed liberal bias in the news media and journalists' connections to Democratic or supposedly liberal causes. The Dems should do the same.

Who's who at the Journal Sentinel anyway? What might explain this consistently slanted coverage and editorial placement of stories?


Post a Comment

<< Home