McBride's Media Matters

2009-09-21T15:49:00.002-05:00

This blog is inactive.

There's a reason some people are anonymous

2008-04-05T12:07:00.004-05:00

It's usually very revealing when we find out the names of the people who hide behind anonymity to call women C---s and bitches (when they aren't meeting their wives online). The more revealing thing is that such people are taken seriously by liberal pundits and politicians and a gushing, laughing host for a state university-operated radio station.

People ask me why I don't blog much anymore. There are a lot of really good bloggers out there. However, it's sad what the blogosphere has degenerated to in other corners, and I don't want to be a part of it. At least not with as much frequency as I did before.

To be blunt: I have more important things to do than debate repeat drunk drivers (3x) on the Internet who, just over two years ago, were in the House of Correction.

(Note: The individual in question was once a criminal defendant who appeared before Louis Butler himself. No wonder he has so much empathy for criminal defendants in front of Louis Butler).

This is just wrong

2008-03-30T23:13:00.003-05:00

Local news outlets are reporting that smear pamphlets against Angel Sanchez are being placed around the aldermanic district he's running in. They are repeating the salacious allegations in the stories (I won't do that here).

That's just wrong. I think it's irresponsible of news organizations to repeat the anonymous smears, thus furthering them, in stories about whether the pamphlets are wrong/defamatory/unfair, etc.

Show some restraint.

Was Nan Hegerty discriminated against?

2008-03-30T23:02:00.001-05:00

Milwaukee's former police chief claims she was discriminated against because Chief Ed Flynn makes more money.

That's how it usually works. People from the outside often get paid more to lure than to jobs than people on the inside.

Gender? If she's so discriminated against, why did they pick her to be chief?

Questions remain

2008-03-18T23:50:00.001-05:00

As a reporter, I covered this inquest and read all of the files and... this shooting was always very sketchy. I am a person who believes the vast majority of the cops are the good guys. That doesn't mean the cops are always right.

By the way, when are the media going to notice that new DA John Chisholm has stopped holding inquests, for all practical purposes. Newsflash! Change in policy.

He's doing the right thing. McCann's approach of calling an inquest in every police shooting where the family requested it was grossly unfair to the cops who had unquestionably done nothing wrong, and it didn't appease the families anyway. When you try to please all of the people all of the time...

The New York Times goes after Obama

2008-03-09T22:58:00.002-05:00

Cliff Notes version: Obama did nothing in the Senate.

But what did Hillary do?

188 previously deported felons cycled through the Milwaukee jail

2008-03-09T19:05:00.004-05:00

Some of my investigative reporting students at Frontpage Milwaukee have done a fine piece of investigative work revealing that 188 previously deported felons reoffended and ended up in the Milwaukee jail in the last few years. Some have...already reoffended. Again.

Read it here.

Incidentally, congrats to the 5 Frontpage Milwaukee students and reporting teams who just won regional journalism awards from the Society of Professional Journalists. They won for: Edgar Mendez columns, Rebecca Kontowicz columns, an in-depth investigation into Milwaukee police officers with criminal records, an in-depth investigation into mall crime, and an in-depth investigation into criminal background checks of caregivers. It was a four-state contest.

Check out FPM every week. The students are doing cutting-edge investigative work.

Prediction

2008-03-08T00:58:00.001-06:00

Number of days before Eugene Kane compares Michael McGee Jr. being held without bail to Dennis Troha getting probation: Less than 5.

Photo of the day

2008-03-07T00:57:00.003-06:00

You've got to admit.... this picture is pretty funny. (WKOW)

This is news?

2008-02-15T19:36:00.002-06:00

I laughed at this news headline in the JS today:

Obama promise (sic) hope, change

This is news? You could write the same headline after every Obama speech. But what, pray tell, does it mean???? Vague platitudes do not an agenda make.

Truth or fiction

2008-02-14T00:21:00.001-06:00

This could be a fascinating story... or not. The lack of response from Ted Kennedy's office is interesting.

Miller's last days?

2008-02-13T22:41:00.002-06:00

I was a speaker at a Milwaukee event yesterday with a bunch of ideologically and ethnically mixed movers and shakers. I can't say more because "what's said in the room, stays in the room." But it's an event that Miller used to sponsor for years. This year, it didn't. It made me wonder: Is Miller pulling up stakes in other areas around town? Something for the reporters to check out...

I was also told Miller sent severance packages to mid-level Milwaukee execs in roughly November...

And now there's the Pete Coors interview saying Milwaukee's unlikely to retain the HQ...

Ouch

2008-02-13T22:39:00.004-06:00

Journal Communications Inc. (JRN) today reported a nearly 60%
drop in net income, as a downturn in the auto industry and real estate market
cut into ad revenue.

This is bad news. Although the advent of the Internet has led to a multiplicity of opinion voices, there aren't many people doing investigative reporting outside of reporters at newspapers (and online newspapers like Frontpage Milwaukee!). Then again, there aren't many reporters at newspapers doing influential investigative reporting, either, but at least there are some.

A picture is worth a thousand words

2008-02-13T22:32:00.002-06:00

P.S. No, this doen't mean I'm voting for Huckabee. I just decided to check him out in Waukesha tonight. Wrote a column on it for the Freeman. I'll post a link when it runs.

ICE grants privacy protections to illegal immigrants

2008-02-04T21:43:00.000-06:00

I asked ICE's regional spokesperson whether a man who appeared in a court hearing was an illegal immigrant and was told that ICE will no longer release such information - even if the person IS an illegal immigrant - because of federal privacy rules. They used to release the information. You could ask them about the immigration status of, say, a violent criminal or other offender, and they would tell you.

Now, they cite this document.

Jessica:

Without having an Alien # (which is how ICE tracks those we have encountered) and a nationality, it would be difficult to determine this individual's status. In addition, DHS has a new privacy policy that prevents me from releasing such information.

Thank you.

Gail Montenegro, Spokesperson
U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Defending the Clintons

2008-02-02T20:42:00.000-06:00

I'd never vote for Hillary Clinton. I disagree with her on too many policy questions. But the media template that the Clintons have somehow gone too negative on Barack Obama, using the race card, is ridiculous.

Obama is not above criticism. Have the Clintons "distorted" his record? Sure. No worse than he's distorted theirs (or McCain's distorted Romney's, etc. etc.) Bill said Obama's anti-war stance was a fairytale. Big deal. I could cite a dozen tougher statements from various other presidential candidates. Why is Obama somehow off limits? Why is he supposed to be treated with kid gloves? Isn't that patronizing? Even racist? If he can't handle someone calling his anti-war stance a fairytale, maybe he doesn't belong in the political arena.

Have the Clintons injected race into the race? I suppose. But so has Obama. He knew exactly what he was doing when he "distorted" Hillary's LBJ comment as a slam on MLK Jr. Was it wrong for Hillary to say Obama was praising Republican ideas? I suppose, but he meant that statement as a slam on the Bill Clinton era. They're not supposed to respond?

The template is ridiculous.

And as for Bill's comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson, if that's so bad, what does it say about Jesse Jackson? If Bill was just theorizing that Obama's appeal will be limited ethnically, how is that any more offensive than the typical Democratic/media analysis that only whites (especially white males) vote Republican or that Mike Huckabee's support is limited to evangelicals?

Kennedy accused of betraying women

2008-01-29T23:12:00.001-06:00

So, what happened to Mary Jo Kopechne doesn't count as betrayal, but Ted Kennedy's decision not to endorse the woman running for president earns him the New York NOW's scorn?

Who "lied" about WMD?

2008-01-24T23:26:00.000-06:00

Saddam, not Bush. Bush was deceived, not the deceiver.

Giuliani's campaign

2008-01-24T17:36:00.000-06:00

Was his Florida strategy one of the biggest campaign blunders in presidential political history?

Time will tell, but it's not looking good. His advisers clearly didn't calculate the value of momentum and the state-by-state horse-race style reporting that would produce a "winner" and "frontrunner" after each state, giving them a bump into the polls.

Rudy needs to hit the tax-cut issue hard. He's got credibility on it. I know he's been starting to do that. He needs to do more of it.

Disrespecting social conservatives

2008-01-24T17:19:00.000-06:00

Enough with the Mike Huckabee bashing. I know it's a bit late to speak out about this now; he's probably done after Florida. But I've been growing sick of the anti-Huckabee vitriol coming from some conservative talk show hosts and bloggers nationally and locally.

I agree that Huckabee has a weak record on taxes and ethics. Clearly, that's fair game for discussion. But the vitriol has gotten tiresome.

Inherent within it seems to be subtle disrespect for social conservatives on some programs. I don't mean all the time; I mean in the presidential election. There's an implication that it's not "OK" for conservative voters to put, say, abortion first by choosing Huckabee.

None of the candidates is "perfect" on the issues. It seems many conservative talk radio hosts have decided that candidates who "fail" the social conservative litmus test - Rudy Giuliani comes to mind - are OK, but people are "fools" to vote for the candidates who "fail" the economic and immigration litmus tests (like Huckabee). I don't mean all hosts, either. I mean some of them.

Every voter has to prioritize the issues in this election. Some social conservatives care mostly about abortion, gay marriage, religious values, and the like. They have a right to do so without condemnation.

Other conservatives - call them tax-and-terror conservatives - prefer a candidate who is strong on those questions (I'd add immigration in there), even if they are weak on social matters.

What we are seeing is a growing rift in the movement between social conservatives and tax-and-terror conservatives, who aren't always comfortable with the social issues, or, at least, aren't as passionate about them as they are about fiscal and national security concerns. This might be a faux rift. It's probably exaggerated by the fact we've got a presidential field filled with candidates who are really strong in one area, but not the other, in different ways, requiring people to stake out what matters most to them. After all, I think most of the talk radio hosts are pro-life too. It's just that they've decided it's not the issue voters should care most about if forced to choose by such a fragmented field.

Personally, I am more of a tax-and-terror conservative. I care about social issues like abortion (I am pro-life) but, perhaps because it's a time of war, I place them secondary in this presidential election. I wish there was a candidate who was strong on all the issues, but there's not (except maybe Mitt Romney, and I don't trust him). I've always leaned toward Rudy Giuliani.

However, enough with the Huckabee bashing. And, for that matter, can we lay off the John McCain bashing too? It's not the criticism per se. He deserves it, too, on a lot of issues. It's just the tone of it.

Wow - that was quite a Democratic debate

2008-01-21T23:47:00.000-06:00

In case you missed it, Hillary and Obama really went at it tonight. I like debates like this one, rather than the stiff version where the candidates are timed with bells and blinking red lights and are not allowed to actually engage one another.

This Democratic primary is getting ugly. It was like watching a prison fight, with Hillary and Barack sticking verbal shivs in each other's ribs, and Edwards sitting there like a cheshire cat, reaping the benefits of the bickering.

Hillary even played the Rezko card! She didn't do it very deftly, either. You could tell she's been keeping that Rezko card in her back pocket and pulled it out before she intended to do so.
She was very weak on Edwards' challenge about why she takes lobbyist money. At the tail end of her response, it was difficult to tell what she was talking about. For all her rhetoric, she's really not that good under sustained attack.
Obama isn't Mr. Nice Guy anymore. He showed an essential toughness and even nastiness. At one point, he went after Hillary with a snarky attack about being a corporate board member for Wal-Mart. I thought it was pretty funny. I still, think, though, that Obama is a great speaker and a politician with immense rhetorical skill, although I disagree with him on almost every policy question.
At one point, Obama brought up a comment Bill Clinton had made about Ronald Reagan. Hillary responded that she was campaigning against him, not her husband. Obama nastily responded that it was getting hard to tell.
Obama was great when he went after Hillary for her campaign's twisting of his various comments and votes. I like that he's decided to call the Clintons out on it.
The media are obsessed with race. The Democrats are obsessed with race. Obama is the only one who doesn't seem obsessed with race at these affairs. Edwards had a funny line where Obama was asked something about whether blacks should vote for him because he's black, and Edwards said something about not expecting white men to vote for him. Good point! (They'll be voting for McCain).
Speaking of McCain, the Democrats clearly think he's going to be the nominee. That throws them off because they agree with a lot of his positions.
I would have wanted to ask John Edwards, the token white guy on the stage, if he still believes in affirmative action. If he does, then shouldn't he concede the presidency to either Hillary or Obama?
I wanted to ask Hillary if she's the one campaigning, not Bill, then why does she keep claiming Bill's accomplishments as President as her own? She can't have it both ways.
When Obama was asked if he thought Bill Clinton was the first black president, I think he should have simply responded, "No, I'll be."
Edwards could have turned into a potted plant or the dateless third wheel at a dinner party, but I thought he had a great debate and was boosted by the Democratic bickering over "present votes" and Ronald Reagan. He's clearly hoping Obama and Hillary will go the way of Checota-Moody. I don't think he helped himself enough to win, but he might hurt Hillary more than she expects with white voters in South Carolina.
The candidates climbed over one another to claim they each want to withdraw the troops as soon as they can, in response to a question that outlined the successes of the surge (revealing). Hillary refused to say she wants us to win when asked the question. She responded that she wants to bring the troops home. Apparently, saying she wants us to win would be a controversial statement on the Left.

Layered like lasagna

2008-01-20T23:53:00.001-06:00

I actually heard the Channel 6 anchorwoman say on the air tonight that Packers' fans were "layered like lasagna" in the stands.

Layered like lasagna????

The public investigator team responds

2008-01-20T23:40:00.000-06:00

The public investigator team for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel responds to the Darshan Dhaliwal criticism. Two paragraphs are particularly revealing:

My story in today's paper about BP gas and gas station baron Darshan Dhaliwal in no way meant to imply that Dhaliwal only supports Republicans.

But that's exactly what the story did imply by only mentioning Dhaliwal's ties to a Republican.

As difficult as it might be to accept for those who thrive on stoking division in the community, I sincerely hope the explanation quells any concerns or confusion about bias and motivation on my part or the part of the Journal Sentinel.

Actually, the opening of this paragraph pretty much confirms it. So, those who think that the original story should have mentioned Dhaliwal's donations to the current governor as well as the former one are just stoking division in the community?

Guess the editors didn't think so. I do give them credit for correcting the record (and for tallying the donations from the entire company, not just Dhaliwal and his family personally):

Correction: An article Friday about BP gas and Mequon gasoline station baron Darshan Dhaliwal mentioned Dhaliwal's close ties to former Gov. Tommy Thompson but failed to mention that he also is a big supporter of Gov. Jim Doyle and other Democrats as well as Republicans. Dhaliwal's company, Bulk Petroleum, has given Doyle $42,000 in the last 10 years and a total of more than $110,000 to politicians on both sides of the aisle, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

Darshan Dhaliwal, major Jim Doyle donor

2008-01-18T01:29:00.000-06:00

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's "public investigator team" writes about a federal suit against gas station magnate Darshan Dhaliwal and stresses his "deep political ties." The article, which seems slanted against Dhaliwal, mentions his ties to Tommy Thompson numerous times - calling him a longtime friend of Tommy near the top of the story - and also mentions that he visited with President Bush.

But the public investigator team doesn't bother to mention that Dhaliwal's donations aren't only to Republicans. They didn't mention his donations to:

$17,000 to Jim Doyle (Doyle's received another $9,500 from other Dhaliwals affiliated with Bulk Petroleum too).
Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee
Brian Burke
Chuck Chvala
Dave Hansen
David Cullen
Gwen Moore
Kathleen Falk
Kathleen Vinehout
Gary George
Louis Butler
And many, many others.

I don't deny he's been a Republican donor or that he has strong ties to Tommy as well. (He gave my husband $1,000 during the AG race).

However, now that he's caught up in a scandal, it's interesting that the media only mention the ties to the GOP.

The story could easily have described him as a major Jim Doyle campaign donor.

Thoughts on Michigan

2008-01-15T21:33:00.000-06:00

Is Romney now the "Comeback Kid"? How many candidates can get that label?
Romney can make a case for being the frontrunner. He's won two states (Michigan, Wyoming) and placed second in two others (Iowa, New Hampshire)
There were fewer independents voting in the GOP primary in Michigan than voted in New Hampshire. McCain has yet to show he can appeal to enough Republicans to win the primary. Then, again, he's showing he can appeal to enough independents to win the presidency.
Giuliani's Florida strategy is risky to say the least. Polls show him losing strength there. Didn't his strategists calculate the power of momentum?
It was poor form for Romney to start his speech at the same time as McCain. I know, I know: He's playing for keeps. But still... It made me like him a little less.
Economics as an issue is starting to overshadow foreign policy on the GOP side. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The progress in Iraq and the Iranian intelligence assessment undercut somewhat the rationale for Giuliani's previously rather singularly focused candidacy by putting other issues on the frontburner. No wonder Rudy's starting to talk taxes all the time. An economic focus boosts Romney due to his success as a businessman.
What if Thompson somehow takes South Carolina and Giuliani gets Florida? Now, that would be fun.