An anatomy of journalistic bias
Our executive producer, Joe Scialfa, notices the contrast in the coverage of the Prosser-Bradley story:
All you have to do is read the headline of this story AND see how it was edited to understand that the JS has a SERIOUS bias regarding the story about what happened between Justice Prosser and Justice Bradley.
The headline for today's story could have been a hundred different things. But they chose to cherry pick the one fact that would make it look like Bradley was the kind concerned co-worker and Prosser was the irrational hothead who refused to get help. When they describe in the story that other Justices said it would be ridiculous for Prosser to seek anger management, they threw in the fact that it was "conservative" judges but left out the fact that the reason they said it would be ridiculous is because they had WITNESSED the "attack" and that Prosser had done nothing wrong and in fact Bradley was the aggressor. That is what you call journalistic bias.
Now compare the JS report to how the national publication "The Atlantic" is talking about the supposed Wisconsin Chokehold.
Interesting they pick out three facts after reading Christian Schneider's most comprehensive account and at least acknowledging that there might be some inclination to believe Prosser's account by Schneider: 1) Bradley was the aggressor 2) No pressure was put on her neck 3) the original story relied on accounts from people who A) didn't witness the event or B) came from Bradley or Abrahamson.