The March 19th issue of the Register reveals both the dependency of the paper as part of a chain, and how poor writing leads to bias or uninformed reporting.
Supreme Court Race. Consider the above-the-fold story on our Supreme Court race, “Judging the Judges.” The story describes a forum before the Milwaukee Press Club at which both Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates spoke.
(Quick note: I am an Abrahamson supporter; Koschnick made a mess of judicial administration in Jefferson County, is running a political rather than judicial race, and has the lesser support among associations of lawyers in the state.)
Look, though, how staff writer Andrew C. Westbrook describes the positions of the candidates — in just under two dozen paragraphs, Westbrook typically leads with Koschnick’s contentions, and leaves Abrahamson in the position of replying to him. Westbrook adopts this technique throughout the article – first Koschnick’s position, and only afterward Abrahamson’s reply. (Thus, Koschnick on judicial activism, on criminal defense rulings, on political contributions, on the supposed anti-police tendency of the sitting Chief Justice of our court, and only after Koschnick’s charge does Westbrook recount Abrahamson’s reply.)
Why does Westbrook write this way? Perhaps, it’s merely a technique, and these accusation-and-reply exchanges never took place. If so, then Westbrook’s distorted the nature of the forum, for a rhetorical device, and a biased one at that.
Alternatively — and those who have followed the campaign know full well — this is how Koschnick presents himself, more politician than judicial candidate. (Judge Gableman became Justice Gabelman this way, just last year.)
Westbrook owes it to his readers to explain this manner — that Koschnick attacks by nature — calling into question his judicial temperament. His manner, and Gabelman’s, is a significant departure from the dispassion one hopes for in a judge, on any court. Westbrook’s story is ultimately uninformative, and reporting that relied on academics in law (or political science) would have offered readers some valuable background.
It’s not as though there was not room in the paper for more detail, and real reporting — the story continues inside, on page 5. There was plenty of room for more.
Westbrook covers this race like it’s a town council contest; it’s not. We’re supposed to be — but are less so each day — a non-partisan, good government state. One hopes for more from a front page, banner story.
(Is not, by the way, Westbrook an editor elsewhere in the Southern Lakes chain? The chain uses, I think, editors at one paper as staff writers, elsewhere. It’s a possible sign of how feeble this chain has become, that it must scrimp at every opportunity.)
Federal Funds for Whitewater. Also above the fold is a story entitled, “City Officials Optimistic about Federal Funding.” One learns that there may be a few possible sources for federal funding, including Milwaukee Street, and a technology park.
(On a technology park — all the funding in the world doesn’t change the sad truth that this town lacks the culture for a thriving technology park, and all the money in the world won’t make tender plants grown among our two or three hundred weeds. Brunner sees this as a ‘tremendous marriage,’ but Whitewater needs more than a Dolly Levi in the Municipal Building.)
Here’s how Editor Schwenke tells the tale:
After instituting a hiring freeze on full-and part-time City of Whitewater job positions earlier this month due to state and general economic concerns, City Manager Kevin Brunner announced the city could likely receive grants for various major development and reconstruction projects in the city.
Quick replies:
1. Does Schwenke think that his readers have short-term memory failure? Only two weeks’ time earlier, Schwenke reported — accurately — that City Manager Kevin Brunner went to council for cover support and approval for a several months’ hiring freeze. (Brunner feared ‘polarizing’ others over a hiring freeze of city workers.) See my earlier post, “Register Watch™ for the March 5th Issue: Hiring Freeze” for more details.
Writing that this was Brunner’s action — as one normally defines the term among the clear, resolute, firm — is risible. Brunner sought cover then, on an obvious mater; he shouldn’t be credited with action now, two weeks’ time later.
2. Imagine being optimistic about federal funding — Why does the city need this federal funding, after all? Because without it, our fiscal condition is dire, not merely for 2009, but beyond. That’s why some of the projects about which Schwenke writes in the story are pushed out so far — 2013 might as well be 2023 — it’s a budgetary device to say some day, some how…
If we are optimistic about federal funding — the tax receipts (or interest bearing debt) from others in America to pay our way — it is because we have failed to budget for ourselves properly. We seek now the last resort of every local official who cannot pay his own way — money from the state, or federal government. State funds are unavailable — Wisconsin’s struggling — and so our City Manager turns his gaze toward … Washington. They’ve billions in deficit spending ready for distribution; Brunner may yet find a place at the trough.
Schwenke’s article asks not a single question, though, about why federal money might be necessary for us, or whether it’s a good idea. It’s so much easier to write his way, but after decades of similar writing, we find ourselves in a situation where we need others so far away, and no one bothers to write about what this may mean.