The Brawler is referring of course to the JSOnline's "Issue of the Day" issue comparison featurette. Basically, the JSOnline posts an issue -- say, concealed carry -- and each candidate responds.
While the Brawler feels they serve a purpose they're of limited utility. That's because this type of forum allows candidates to get their spinpoints in without any reporterial followup. But again, it's nice to have markers like this.
That said, the Brawler is 99% sure the JSOnline rewrote a Friday post about campaign fundraising. How so? The Brawler recalls being startled that Mark Green -- the Republican ethics champion who donated $1,000 to the Tom DeLay defense fund -- used his space to make a snide remark about Doyle & casinos. And that was it.
It seemed odd that Mark Green, who is trying to bury his past as a DeLay apparatchik, would use the forum not to tout his own position but to simply attack Doyle.
It seemed odd that the JSOnline would let him do that.
So the Brawler's eyebrows raised when he returned to the JSOnline site today.
Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Green: Says he would "support a ban on raising funds from special interest groups while the budget is under consideration." Would also extend it contributions to a governor's campaign from casino interests during casino negotiations and from employees or others from a company that replied to a state "request for proposal" while the RFP is under consideration.
That is absolutely, 100% NOT what the Brawler read. Its sloppy writing ("Would also extend it contributions..." Huh? Think you want to a "to" between "it" and "contributions.") suggests this post is a quick rewrite.
Did a higher up at the JS decry the hackwork? Did Mark Green's people realize he looked like a tool? Did the Doyle people complain?
The Brawler thought the JSOnline's tampering of its online content was amusing given that the writer is Greg Borowski, who earlier this month dropped this load of self congratulatory fatuity in talking about the JSOnline's political coverage.
For reporters, it is easy to tell when an election is approaching. Just check your voice mail and e-mail in-box, where readers - and aides to candidates - eagerly review your work, pointing out perceived shortcomings, omissions and bias.
At times, these can be hard to sift through, since the same story might generate complaints that contradict each other. A recent story on the embryonic stem cell issue brought e-mails from voters on both sides, each claiming the headline was biased against their guy.
That scrutiny is nothing new, but high-stakes elections - like the one we're in now - tend to inflame the passions of readers. Some will count lines of stories, or tally which candidate is quoted first more often, to allege bias.
Of course, scrutiny doesn't just come from readers.
Reporters and editors at the Journal Sentinel spend a lot of time discussing coverage - before and after stories are done.
*************
Our aim is always to report what candidates say, as well as what they have done in the past, and to present it with enough background and context so readers can make informed decisions in time for election day.
Sometimes this means being the watchdog, other times the interpreter or guide. Always, it means being at the center of what is happening in the race.
There's a lot to take aim at here, but the Brawler has limited time.
He would just note that it is extremely poor form for a media outlet to arbitrarily rewrite its online content without telling its readership. It undermines your credibility as an "interpreter" or "guide."
Indeed, it puts you on par with a certain former JS reporter who now mysteriously teaches journalism.
Comments