By Brian Sikma

They assume for themselves the authoritarian mantel of unbiased journalism, but three recent ratings by the reporters at the Journal Sentinel’s Politifact may point to a thinly veiled bias. The John K. MacIver Institute was awarded a “Mostly False” rating for a brief story that their MacIver News Service published noting that the Government Accountability Board will not immediately strike the names “Mickey Mouse” or “Adolph Hitler” from recall petitions. The recall of Governor Scott Walker has been the backdrop for Politifact’s arbitrary “Mostly False” rating of two conservative groups, and one “True” rating of a liberal group.

The “True” rating issued to One Wisconsin Now was in response to a statement that the group made encouraging advocates of recalling Gov. Walker to sign recall petitions multiple times. Recall organizers must gather just over 540,000 valid signatures in order to force a recall of the governor. State law permits multiple signatures on the same petition effort but states that only the first signature will count. The reasoning is that if the first petition is damaged or the first signature destroyed, the second signature would carry through and be counted towards the total number of signatures.

Setting aside the wisdom behind the law, there are practical matters of concern in dealing with duplicate signatures. Organizers would need to self-police themselves by striking duplicates prior to submitting the entire batch of petitions (numbering in the hundreds of thousands of printed pages), the GAB would need to systematically develop a way to cross check signatures and names on the petitions (arguably they will not do this thoroughly), and outside groups – including the Walker campaign – will have a narrow 10 day window in which to review the petitions and submit challenges to strike duplicate or otherwise ineligible signatures.

Politifact’s rating of One Wisconsin Now’s claim as “True” is valid because the facts exist to back up the claim. Conservatives may oppose the way the law is written and there may be problems with the system that exists to attempt to enforce the law. Calling for a sort of insurance policy whereby recall supporters sign at least two different petitions may be necessary (according to some) in light of the handful of petitions that have been destroyed, or in the event that a petition is misplaced or not turned in for whatever reason.

Oddly, the reasoning that Politifact seemed to find so compelling when explained by One Wisconsin Now generated a “Mostly False” rating for Media Trackers. Media Trackers noted in November that there are two facts about the recall system that could be viewed as flaws – and threats to privacy – and have gone unnoticed until now. The assertion that these flaws are “new” stemmed from the fact that not one news or opinion source had raised the points that Media Trackers raised.

According to Wisconsin law, the information placed on a recall petition is publicly available and there are no laws that prevent recall petition circulators from copying information from recall petitions and using it for political or commercial purposes. This fact was corroborated by the Government Accountability Board in the Media Trackers report.

Also according to Wisconsin law, anyone may circulate a recall petition. Unlike registering voters, which in some Wisconsin jurisdictions must only be done by trained, pre-approved individuals, recall petitions may be circulated by anyone without the need for prior training or approval. Some believe this lack of accountability relates back to the essential right to petition government; but if a voter registration form and a recall petition are both legal documents, why the disparity in treatment? Media Trackers did not attempt to reconcile the conflicting arguments about the wisdom of the law, it merely pointed out what the law allows and does not allow, and how – unfortunately – some could abuse the law and the process.

Politifact’s story analyzing the Media Trackers article basically agreed with the substance of what the Media Trackers report found. However, Politifact didn’t rely on just what the law said in slapping the report with a “Mostly False” rating. Politifact made an editorial decision that because there was not enough evidence, in their minds, that anyone was abusing the provisions of the law as they stood, it was out of line for Media Trackers to point out the possibility. This, of course, even though there are cases of individuals being harassed because of signing a recall petition (which of course includes personal information).

Looking at the recent “Mostly False” rating given the MacIver News Service, Politifact’s bias comes out quite openly. In that case, a video story published by the conservative organization contained a raw dialogue section between two GAB officials – a board member and a staffer – in which the staff member admitted that no, the GAB would not strike the names “Mickey Mouse” or “Adolph Hitler” from a petition if a plausible Wisconsin address was listed. From that conversation the MacIver News Service noted that apparently the GAB will count such signatures unless an outside group challenges the validity of the signature.

Politifact struck back at the conservative organization saying in essence that while the facts of their story are true, there is the possibility that the names could be caught somewhere in the process, so in reality there is little chance that Mickey Mouse and Adolph Hitler would count towards the total number of signatures needed to force a recall election. This was an editorial decision; a value judgment on the part of Politifact and it was the only grounds on which the feature based its “Mostly False” rating.

Not even a century ago newspapers were known by their style of reporting and editorial slant. There were conservative newspapers and liberal newspapers. Reporters covered their stories bent on uncovering facts and then wrote stories reflecting some point of view about those facts. While facts were always facts, it was recognized that different reporters, editors and newspapers would analyze and view those facts from different perspectives.

Today, features like Politifact do themselves and the public a disservice by promoting the idea that they are unbiased in their reporting. These three ratings, one about a liberal group and two about conservative groups, show that indeed there is bias at the Journal Sentinel’s Politifact. Honesty about bias serves the public interest in a much greater way than an elaborate game of make-believe where reporters view themselves as the demigods of impartiality and unbiased journalism.