Dan Bice of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel couldn't take it anymore.
Mark Belling devoted hours of his WISN radio program informing the public about Mayor Tom Barrett's campaign manager, Bill Hyers, driving a car with expired plates for not passing the emissions test. Belling also spent a good deal of time discussing the media's blackout on the story.
Today, the Journal Sentinel succumbed. Bice wrote a snarky column explaining why the Barrett story was not newsworthy, tossing in jabs at Belling.
I get why Bice would be a bit ticked off. Belling was questioning his journalistic integrity, and we all know how important journalistic integrity is to Bice. (Extreme sarcasm intended.)
So Bice attempts to make the case that driving with expired plates isn't a big deal.
He doesn't address the hypocrisy of Tom "Green Fleet" Barrett having a campaign manager who doesn't comply with the required emissions test for his vehicle.
Bice writes:
It apparently doesn't take much to excite conservative radio talk show host Mark Belling.
He received a tip that the campaign manager for Mayor Tom Barrett, a guy named Bill Hyers, was driving a car with expired tags. Hyers also apparently has a couple of unpaid parking tickets.
No Quarter got the same tip.
And ignored it.
The paper gets many story suggestions just like this one. People complain when campaign staffers put fliers in mailboxes. Or when staffers forget to put the "paid for" disclosures on campaign material.
Those are all violations but ones so minor the column and the newspaper generally ignore them.
Instead, No Quarter tries to focus on candidates and major infractions. There are exceptions - particularly if there is something humorous or unusual about a situation - but that is how it works in general.
As for Barrett's campaign manager's car, that tip came in at the same time that Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Neumann acknowledged screwing up when he tried to evade $25,000 in transfer fees. The latter seemed significant - it's a serious financial issue involving the candidate directly. The Belling tip did not. It involves a staffer's traffic citations and expired registration.
It is idiotic for Bice to suggest that the story about Barrett's manager's car didn't warrant attention because the tip came in at the same time a tip about Mark Neumann's transfer fees screw-up arrived.
It's irrelevant.
What sort of news outlet rejects covering a story because another story came to the fore simultaneously? A very poor and biased one.
Bice can argue that the Neumann story was of greater significance, but that doesn't let him and his paper off the hook for completely dismissing the Barrett story.
If only Bice had found the violation "humorous" or "unusual," then the public would have been informed.
Ludicrous!
Did Bice find the Darlene Wink story humorous? Unusual?
I'd like to hear him justify his decision to cover that with such zeal.
What's more, Barrett spokesman Phil Walzak said Hyers doesn't routinely drive the mayor to campaign events. It's certainly not his day-to-day responsibility, Walzak said. Barrett's chances would be doomed this fall if his manager is spending his time schlepping the mayor to chicken dinners in Superior.
So, no, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate is not "campaigning around the state in a car whose registration is suspended for emissions test violation," as Belling claims.
That makes the whole thing incredibly minor. Editors and news reporters who were shown the tip were just as unimpressed.
A few callers and e-mails, incidentally, have suggested No Quarter's decision was politically motivated.
Really?
Just consider past stories and columns about County Board Chairman Lee Holloway's housing code violations, Speaker Mike Sheridan's affair with a lobbyist, Supervisor Elizabeth Coggs' use of tax dollars to travel to President Obama's inaugural and Supervisor Toni Clark's theft from her campaign account.
Or this last year about the influence of campaign donations on Gov. Jim Doyle. Or this column on the Barrett administration's role in helping a private firm set up a private college.
There are many more columns just like those about other Democrats - but none involving expired tags.
Clearly, Bice is pissed.
He whines that Hyers doesn't even drive Barrett around that much. That means it's incredibly minor.
Sure, Bice can come up with some stories he did about the infractions of Democrats, but those are individual cases that stand alone. When dealing with three candidates vying for the same office, balance becomes important. In effect, the context is different.
Taken together, the fairness of the Journal Sentinel's coverage of Tom Barrett, Scott Walker, and Mark Neumann needs to be examined. It matters due to their relationship to each other in terms of the election. What sort of treatment are they currently receiving from the JS?
Frankly, I don't buy that Bice would have considered expired tags minor if it had involved the campaigns of Walker or Neumann. I don't buy it.
But Bice simply brushes off Barrett's infraction, the failure to get on his campaign manager's case for not abiding by the law. Hyers isn't a volunteer or a low-level staffer. He's Barrett's manager. Bice prefers to call him a "staffer." (I suppose he thinks Rahm Emanuel is just a "staffer," too.)
It's funny that earlier in his column Bice gives Hyers his props. "Barrett's chances would be doomed this fall if his manager is spending his time schlepping the mayor to chicken dinners in Superior."
Hyers is manager. Big stuff. However, when it suits Bice's purposes, Hyers becomes a "staffer."
Bias? Agenda? What? Huh?
Clearly, in Bice's world, an individual failing to meet required environmental standards is insignificant. Who cares? Bice considers the act not worth mentioning at all.
If Barrett is cool with Hyers blowing off or flunking an emissions test, I assume as governor he'd have no problem with the rest of us not bothering to comply.
Don't bother to renew your registration and mess with an emissions test. Just drive.
In sum, Bice and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel STILL haven't covered the Tom Barrett expired vehicle registration story. Bice opted to do a piece slamming Belling and others of the opinion that the Barrett story has merit and deserves hard news coverage. Rather than cover the Barrett story, Bice chooses to use it as a springboard to mock Belling and the rest of us.
Nice, Bice. Very nice.
7 comments:
Excellent blog. Keep up the good work, & I hope you consider following mine as well.
A point of clarification: I am not upset with Belling over anything he has said about me on this issue or any other. I listened to 20 minutes of Mark's spin on emissions-gate, and he seemed rather mild-mannered. Not once did he disparage my Appalachian heritage or public school education.
In truth, I wrote the blog post because my editors asked me to. Still, I appreciated the psychological and political analysis of my motivations in this matter. I can use all the input I get, especially when it's free.
Note: For the sake of discussion, I'll play along and assume that you aren't impersonating JS reporter Bice.
Clearly, you have no ax to grind when it comes to Belling. Your comments about him drip with sincerity. Of course, that's just my "free" analysis. (You're welcome!)
You say you wrote the piece because your editors asked you to.
I'd be interested to know why they wanted you to address the matter.
Getting inundated with analysis and "free input" from readers?
I'm not sure why anyone would want to impersonate me; you would inherit little more than a mortgage, chronic migraines and three angst-ridden teenagers.
Don't try to over-think these things. Editors are as lazy as you and me. About a dozen people called and twice that number emailed the paper's city desk at Belling's prodding. (I urged Mark to give out my direct line, but to no avail. I get the sense that he likes torturing editors even more than I.)
By having me write something about something that I hadn't written about -- get that? -- the editors could simply direct future callers and e-mailers to the blog post. Problem solved. They also told me that it would improve newsroom transparency. OK, whatever.
In reality, the blog post allowed Mark to squeeze another segment out of emissions-gate, and it gave many others the chance to vent and redirect whatever repressed animus they hold toward their parents or significant others. Not that I mind. Many a politician has accused me of doing the exact same thing, only in print.
I understand how people behave on the Internet. Unless I've verified someone's identity, I'm not going to act as if I have.
"Editors are as lazy as you and me."
Speak for yourself. I'm not lazy.
"[I]t gave many others the chance to vent and redirect whatever repressed animus they hold toward their parents or significant others."
Are you trying to be witty? I think you're being rather condescending.
My posts on the topic of Barrett and his manager's expired registration had nothing to do with "repressed animus."
A second point of clarification:
Of course, I (first-person singular) didn't mean to speak of you (second-person singular) or your work habits because I know neither. I intended to smear only you (second-person plural) and me.
I also meant nothing personal regarding those who post comments on my stories. The more, the merrier. I was simply repeating, in jest, a charge that is occasionally leveled at me. Perhaps it was a case of misplaced displacement.
To summarize, I'm fine with Belling, my editors, my readers and your industriousness. In particular, keep trying to find novel rhymes for my last name. As my second-grade classmates proved long ago, the list appears endless.
Oh, good grief.
You clarify that you meant no personal smears in your previous comment by tacking on another?
Is there no end to your condescension?
I wasn't "trying" to come up with a rhyme for your last name, 2nd grade-style.
Bottom line: The Journal Sentinel's coverage of the candidates is biased.
The hypocrisy of Barrett's campaign manager not complying with the emissions test requirement and having expired plates makes the story newsworthy, not a minor thing to be ignored by the media.
Barrett has no credibility to push a green agenda while failing to hold his campaign manager accountable. It reflects very, very poorly on Barrett.
Post a Comment