Date: 1|25|2012
Editor, Reporter at Local Paper Sign Fitzgerald Recall Petitions
By: Brian Sikma
A few weeks ago it came to light that a reporter and regional editor for a local Wisconsin newspaper was publicly backing the effort to recall one of the state’s Republican state senators. Ryan Whisner, who covers state politics among other topics for the Jefferson County Daily Union in Ft. Atkinson, cheered on the efforts of recall Fitzgerald organizers saying on their Facebook page, “You can do it Lori!” Whisner was directing his comment at Lori Compas, the organizer of the effort to recall state Senator Scott Fitzgerald, a Republican who helped push public sector union reform through the legislature in early 2011.
Repeatedly over the past few months Whisner, as a reporter, has covered the recall effort being run by Compas. Even before the recall attempt his beat regularly included reporting on the actions and statements of Senator Fitzgerald. That he would openly align himself with the recall effort and cheer it on has caused some controversy. Mark Belling, an opinion leader and conservative talk show host in Milwaukee, asked Whisner’s paper for comment on the incident. The paper’s managing editor, Christine Spangler, replied to Belling saying that both she as the paper’s editor and Whisner regret the incident and believe it should not have taken place.
The paper denied that the incident reflected any possible bias that it might have against Senator Fitzgerald. The credibility of that denial, and the credibility of the paper, could now be on the line.
Whisner Signature
Documents show that both Spangler and Whisner signed petitions to force a recall of Fitzgerald. In fact, Whisner’s name surfaces on the very first petition which also contains the name of Lori Compas, the organizer of the effort and the one whom Whisner cheered on during the final days of the signature gathering period. Managing Editor Spangler’s name appears on petition 2716 of the file.
That both Spangler and Whisner signed the recall petitions goes a step beyond just one of them offering moral support to the project. It shows that both of them are deeply involved, at least in this instance, in a very partisan action that – although perfectly acceptable for average citizens – does raise questions about their impartiality as journalists. If Spangler and Whisner do have a bias, and a review of Whisner’s articles does show hints of bias coming through, then they should be honest about it.
In recent piece on the recalls Whisner wrote:
“Recalls have become common in Wisconsin since the political tumult of 2011 that saw Walker and Republicans pass collective-bargaining changes, one of the country’s most restrictive laws requiring photo identification at the polls, and a budget that included $800 million in cuts to public schools.”
Choosing to use such language such as “country’s most restrictive” when, in fact, Wisconsin’s legislation mirrors similar laws found in states like Indiana is a value judgment that other, perhaps more impartial, observes could easily disagree with.
Touting the triumph of recall advocates in obtaining what may be enough signatures to force a recall of Fitzgerald, Whisner opined in a news piece:
“Democrats and their allies are looking to punish Republicans for passing a contentious law last year that stripped most public workers of nearly all their union rights. The brainchild of Gov. Scott Walker, the proposal generated weeks of around-the-clock protests at the Capitol and drove the Senate’s 14 Democrats to flee the state in a futile attempt to block a vote on the plan.”
It is a value judgment, not an impartial fact, that Walker’s budget repair bill “stripped” public workers of “nearly all their union rights.” The measure did reform collective bargaining, but it did not terminate unions and it did not prohibit or prevent public workers from joining unions and working together through unions. It is also a mistake to view it as a fact that the reform “drove” Democrats to “flee the state.” Democrat state senators chose to leave Wisconsin, they weren’t involuntarily hustled out because of some bill that was introduced.
Spangler Signature
If Christine Spangler and Ryan Whisner want the Jefferson County Daily Union to be a partial, biased source of information, they should simply be clear about that. There is nothing dishonorable about declaring where your biases might be and what lens you are going to use to view things through. What is dishonorable is claiming the mantle of impartiality when nothing could be further from the truth and your own actions evidence that indeed you do have strong, partisan feelings that support one side and not the other.
When the first flap occurred with Whisner’s ill-advised comments, it appears that at least Whisner, and possibly Spangler, had already signed the recall petitions. So while they tried to proclaim their own credibility and assure the public that all was well, they were aware of their own personal bias, a bias that ran deep enough to sign a recall petition.
While the ultimate judge of a reporter or editor’s failure to disclose a bias must be left up to the public, the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics contains a section on conflicts of interest that can serve as a helpful guide. Even though the code does contain protections for progressive tenets and operates under the flawed assumption that it is possible for any human being to be impartial and unbiased, here is what it has to say in part about conflicts of interest:
—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
It would appear that based on these simple rules, the managing editor and one of the regional editors of the Jefferson County Daily Union failed to live up to their obligations as self-proclaimed impartial journalists. If the Jefferson County Daily Union wishes to be clear about its bias and be a newspaper that has a partisan slant that is perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable are journalists and news organizations that use the mantle of impartial fact-finding to legitimize their own partisan points of view.
Related Articles | You may also like
-
“Moderate” Sens Jauch & Schultz Seek To Slap Mining Co. With $25 Million In Taxes
-
NEW VIDEO: Wisconsin Union Bosses, Mo Money Causin Mo Problems
-
PHOTO EVIDENCE: Falk Touting Sellout to Big Labor?
-
EXCLUSIVE: Lawmakers Blast GAB’s Disenfranchisement Decision
-
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel To Host Fundraiser For Mayor Tom Barrett
-
EXCLUSIVE: WEAC President Mary Bell Caught Lying About Back-Room Veto Pledge
Discussion | 26 Comments on "Editor, Reporter at Local Paper Sign Fitzgerald Recall Petitions"
Leave a Comment
Your reply will be added to the comment above (Below any other replies to this comment) -
Robert Earle said
Jan 25, 2012 at 6:03 PM
Sort of like how you call yourselves both “conservative” and “non-partisan”?
Shall I dig out the Video of Sean Hannity actually on stage with McCain at a campaign event during the 2008 election?
People who cover the news have opinions about the news they cover; and they sometimes exercise their rights as citizens and express those opinions. Big deal.
Gary Lee said
Jan 25, 2012 at 9:40 PM
Hannity actually supported McCain, is a well known conservative and admits his bias. Whereas the editor and reporter of the Jefferson County Daily Union both claimed to be “non partisan” and unbiased. Two lied, the other disclosed his biases. So, what is to gripe about Robert?
Robert Earle said
Jan 25, 2012 at 10:46 PM
See, that’s the thing here – the presumption that signing a petition is somehow a showing of “bias”. “Showing bias” and “having an opinion” are not the same.
Further, I’m not what level of ‘non-bias’ or ‘non-opinion’ or however you want to phrase it these two claim in their writing; or whether that writing appeared on a ‘news’ page or ‘op/ed’ page, etc in their paper.
Third, quoting from ‘Journalist Code of Ethics’ doesn’t seem particularly relevant unless these two have explicitly vowed to adhere to it.
Fourth (probably related to the above), you’re going to have to explain exactly where these two “lied”.; and where they claimed to be “non-partisan”. Media Trackers claims it in their ‘masthead’ yet there is opinion dripping from these articles. Are they “lying” then?
Lastly, and again with regard to that Code of Ethics: for you to have a problem with these two, but not with Hannity. Hannity must then not be a ‘journalist’, right? because if he is, then his appearing with McCain would be a similar ‘violation’. So what are the chances Hannity wouldn’t be claiming ‘freedom of the press’ should a Justice Dept subpoena land on his desk one day?
Skeptical said
Jan 27, 2012 at 3:41 AM
@ Robert: Wisner is a reporter who is supposed to report happenings and goings on in the local Fort Atkinson area and should thus, when writing articles, report only the news without injecting his own biases or opinions into what he says. He is NOT an Op-Ed person whose journalistic contributions are allowed to be based solely on his opinion. On the other hand, Hannity is not really a reporter, he is a political pundit who is paid solely to share his opinions on politics, and as someone else pointed out, admits his bias as he expresses his opinion. His job is not really to report on facts, it is more to report on his reactions to political news. There IS a difference, and it is a significant one. Guess you missed it…?
Robert Earle said
Jan 27, 2012 at 4:47 AM
“…report only the news without injecting his own biases or opinions into what he says.”
Again, having a bias and having an opinion are not the same thing. Bias is an opinion formed in the absence of – or in contradiction to – facts. So rather than talking about “bias” and “opinion”, it is probably more useful to talk about “biased opinion” vs “non-biased opinion”.
Now we can argue and disagree (and probably do) with the value judgement as to whether the WI voter ID law is or is not ‘more restrictive’ than the law in Indiana. And we can argue and disagree (and probably do) with the value judgement as to whether AB 10 “stripped most public workers of nearly all their union rights.” But a difference of opinion is not bias as long as the value judgement is based in fact; it is simply a difference of opinion. And *every* writer has to make value judgements as they attempt to distill complicated issues down to the ’25 words or less’ summaries required to write a news article, or a blog post, etc.
So I go back to my original statement – People who cover the news have opinions about the news they cover; and they sometimes exercise their rights as citizens and express those opinions. Big deal.
Brett Meier said
Feb 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM
SO ya’ll think journalists shouldn’t vote or sign recall petitions now?
rodeodance said
Jan 25, 2012 at 6:28 PM
I feared this would happen and it did. The fear is that names on the petition would be used for all kinds of purposes. Whow. How low can Media Matters go?
rodeodance said
Jan 25, 2012 at 6:56 PM
Obviously I meant MediaTrackers (not media matters) in my previous post.
Skeptical said
Jan 27, 2012 at 3:39 AM
@ Robert: Wisner is a reporter who is supposed to report happenings and goings on in the local Fort Atkinson area and should thus, when writing articles, report only the news without injecting his own biases or opinions into what he says. He is NOT an Op-Ed person whose journalistic contributions are allowed to be based solely on his opinion. On the other hand, Hannity is not really a reporter, he is a political pundit who is paid solely to share his opinions on politics, and as someone else pointed out, admits his bias as he expresses his opinion. His job is not really to report on facts, it is more to report on his reactions to political news. There IS a difference, and it is a significant one. Guess you missed it…?
Brett Meier said
Feb 3, 2012 at 5:15 PM
So journalists shouldn’t be allowed to vote or sign petitions now? LoL
Gary Lee said
Jan 25, 2012 at 9:42 PM
Rodeodance: When you sign a public document, it becomes available to the public. You didn’t really believe such public documents were to remain confidential, did you? If you signed the recall petition, then we’ll all know it. There’s a consequence when you wear your politics on your sleeve….
Brett Meier said
Feb 3, 2012 at 4:45 PM
It was made public for verification reasons. It seems the WI righties are using it for other purposes. Wondering how far it will go considering that righties have already been getting people’s personal info and calling them to intimidate recall signees.
J J Maloney said
Feb 3, 2012 at 4:48 PM
@ Skeptical, kind of like Faux News reporting “Live from Madison, WI” last February with news videos with Palm Trees and violence. I was in Madison at the protests, and I can guarantee you, there were no natural palm trees there, and I, personally, did not witness any acts of violence. Every person has a right to their own opinion and a right to be heard, but I guess the Righties only consider other Righties opinions worth hearing.
Tim Brahier said
Jan 26, 2012 at 9:32 PM
What a surprise! The Union fair and balanced? Hardly. Just read the Letters to the Editor section. Also any story about Governor Walker is about how mad everyone is about his policies not about how happy the majority of us are about his accomplishments. Maybe a reference to the previous state administration is in order, like all the liberal biased media does on the federal level.
Dawn said
Jan 27, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Is not signing the recall petition “impartial”? I don’t get it; if you sign or don’t sign, isn’t that making a statement in either direction?
A subscriber said
Jan 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM
The Daily Jefferson County Union? I stand by it and its staff as being professional enough to keep their coverage unbiased, regardless of their personal views.
jamie also a subscriber said
Jan 27, 2012 at 5:04 PM
My brother and I have been discussing for months whisners obvious politiclal affiliation and poor reporting. Knowing this I take all of his articles with a grain of salt. Ironically he just did a fluff piece on walker walkers that was pretty good. Must have been punishment.
English Teacher said
Jan 27, 2012 at 3:01 PM
Brian Sikma says Whisner shows bias in this statement — “Democrats and their allies are looking to punish Republicans for passing a contentious law last year that stripped most public workers of nearly all their union rights. The brainchild of Gov. Scott Walker, the proposal generated weeks of around-the-clock protests at the Capitol and drove the Senate’s 14 Democrats to flee the state in a futile attempt to block a vote on the plan.”
It is a value judgment, not an impartial fact, that Walker’s budget repair bill “stripped” public workers of “nearly all their union rights.” The measure did reform collective bargaining, but it did not terminate unions and it did not prohibit or prevent public workers from joining unions and working together through unions. It is also a mistake to view it as a fact that the reform “drove” Democrats to “flee the state.” Democrat state senators chose to leave Wisconsin, they weren’t involuntarily hustled out because of some bill that was introduced.”
Hilarious. Whisner’s statement is factual and seems less a value judgment than Sikma’s. Pot calling the kettle black!
Kathy said
Jan 27, 2012 at 9:59 PM
It is about time the Daily Union had some balanced reporting, thank you Ryan Whisner. The daily union has not supported a democratic candidate for office…..ever? Randy and Brian Knox who own and run the paper are staunch republicans!!! But let’s attack Spangler and Whisner for exercising their constitutional rights….media trackers is pure McCarthyism?
Jamie said
Jan 29, 2012 at 7:36 PM
To my knowledge Mr Knox doesn’t right the articles. Its about time? Exactly how long has conservative reporting been going on? How long has Ms. Spangler been managing editor? How long has Mr. Whisner been an unbiased reporter? Your veiw makes me laugh. McCarthyism…funny.
R K Jossart said
Feb 2, 2012 at 7:27 AM
A waste of time trying to talk sense to M
Brett Meier said
Feb 3, 2012 at 4:38 PM
So what?! Reporters can sign recall petitions. Maybe you tools should stop using the access to recall signatures as a way to write hit pieces and use it for it’s intended purpose which is to verify signatures.
vaughn Nickel said
Feb 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM
After I attack someone I do the acronym, ISIST (I’m Sorry I Said That disclaimer). I wish the Russians would nuke the GOP Convention ISIST. See how easy it is to apologize?
hal said
Feb 10, 2012 at 5:47 PM
All media has bias just as all humans naturally have their own biases . It’s the job of a good journalist to attempt to “turn off” their own internal bias when reporting but everyone knows that this almost always impossible to do a %100 of the time . Still , hearing a complaint about bias from a website that keeps it’s ownership and funding information concealed by layers and layers of secrecy is the ultimate Pot calling the Kettle Black .” —Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.” sounds like media trackers certainly failed that one .