skip to nav skip to content


Charlie Sykes: Sykes Writes

Emails from Journal Sentinel Editors Reveal Their Bias

  • Print

Posted at Right Wisconsin

George Mitchell writes:


Last week’s misleading John Doe coverage generated enough reader criticism to prompt lengthy email responses from Journal Sentinel Editor Marty Kaiser and Managing Editor George Stanley.
Critics clearly got the attention of the newsroom.  Lengthy sections of Kaiser’s and Stanley’s emails to readers are identical.  Kaiser and Stanley clearly teamed up to quell a widespread subscriber pushback.
The Kaiser and Stanley emails are highly instructive. Both Kaiser and Stanley deploy and knock down straw men in responding to readers.  Each dodge the principal objection to the paper’s initial story last week.  Of even greater interest is Stanley’s take on the broader John Doe investigation.  It is a revealing look at the newsroom mindset.  It undercuts Stanley’s (and Kaiser’s) claim that the paper is neutral in its coverage.
First, recall what prompted the outcry about the paper’s initial 1,600-word story, the story that launched a national wave of misleading headlines and social media traffic.  The headline and banner story — with three bylines and contributions from three other reporters — placed Walker at the center of what prosecutors called a "criminal scheme" to violate state election law.  The story went nearly 300 words before reporting a comment from Walker.  It continued another 700 words before confirming Walker’s claim that two judges had rejected the prosecution theory.  Not until the second-to-last paragraph did it actually quote one of the judges.
But what are the undeniable facts, before and after last week’s document release?  They are, first that Walker has not been charged with anything and, second, two separate judges have said there is no evidence to support charges.  
Thus, as the paper’s many critics have pointed out, the real "news" is that the released documents detail a months-old prosecution theory that has failed to gain any legal traction.  Are the documents news?  Yes.  But should early stories have explained that news in the clear context of the judicial rulings?
 By not doing so, did the Journal Sentinel fuel a misleading national wave of negative stories about Walker?  Yes.
Stanley’s answer to such criticism?  He basically argues that the judicial rulings are old news, previously reported by the paper.  But in advancing that line, Stanley acknowledges that the newsroom was 100% aware of the rulings when the documents were released last week. 
This makes the paper’s initial stories all the more reprehensible.  While the newsroom knew that two separate judges had rejected the prosecution theory, it buried that crucial fact.  Stanley acts as though the mere existence of the earlier stories provides the context that local and national readers would have needed last week. 
Rather than respond to the principal criticism, i.e., the initial stories lacked crucial context, Stanley and Kaiser duck that challenge.  Instead, as Kaiser says,  "We believe that Friday's stories and headlines accurately reflected the news. We were reporting from the documents released Thursday…" He and Stanley appear to think the paper can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.  It can’t report Thursday’s news in the context of crucial prior news.  
The Stanley email spins the broader John Doe story in a way that reveals a newsroom bias he consistently denies.   It was the Governor, he pointedly says, not the Journal Sentinel, that "made the decision to closely coordinate the governor's campaign fund-raising and spending with those of private groups in a way we haven't seen before in Wisconsin under current campaign finance laws.  Gov. Walker, his staff and his supporters chose to test the limits of campaign finance laws in this way."  In essence, in Stanley’s view, Governor Walker brought the John Doe investigation on himself.  This thesis makes the Journal Sentinel’s John Doe biased coverage much more understandable, to wit:



This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Milwaukee, WI

ESE at 10 mph

620 WTMJ