Journal Sentinel Editorial Weakened By False Equivalency
Professional mainstream media news coverage tries to play things down the middle, 50-50 - - equal time, roughly equivalent space, and so on - - but there's no need for editorial boards to do the same.
I read this editorial from the Journal Sentinell this way: it wanted to take a swipe at Scott Walker for his attacks on Mary Burke, Trek and the issue of who or what paid taxes when. It calls Walker "completely wrong."
Then it unnecessarily segues to President Obama and a different corporate tax matter on which the editorial board agrees and credits Obama with being "right on the merits."
And then the editorial goes on to say that Obama and his people should better address without political considerations a huge range of problems with the US tax code, so the conclusion is that we need a better debate on tax policy both in Wisconsin and Washington, DC.
We're left with one of those self-neutralizing 'they're-all doing it' analyses.
If you want to slap Walker for politicking against Burke and Trek, just do it.
If you want to slap Obama for politicking on federal tax policy, do that, too.
But putting them into the same cake recipe as if they were interchangeable ingredients - - and then making the cake even bigger, with more layers - - guarantees that the cake will end up unattractive and tasteless.
I read this editorial from the Journal Sentinell this way: it wanted to take a swipe at Scott Walker for his attacks on Mary Burke, Trek and the issue of who or what paid taxes when. It calls Walker "completely wrong."
Then it unnecessarily segues to President Obama and a different corporate tax matter on which the editorial board agrees and credits Obama with being "right on the merits."
And then the editorial goes on to say that Obama and his people should better address without political considerations a huge range of problems with the US tax code, so the conclusion is that we need a better debate on tax policy both in Wisconsin and Washington, DC.
We're left with one of those self-neutralizing 'they're-all doing it' analyses.
If you want to slap Walker for politicking against Burke and Trek, just do it.
If you want to slap Obama for politicking on federal tax policy, do that, too.
But putting them into the same cake recipe as if they were interchangeable ingredients - - and then making the cake even bigger, with more layers - - guarantees that the cake will end up unattractive and tasteless.
3 comments:
That's done intentionally. When their boy Scotty messes up , the J-S tries to muddy the water enough so that the average person on the street says "THEYRE ALL CORRUPT!"
Which allows Walker and his puppet masters to get away with being crooks. Haynes and Stanley know this, and that's why they do it.
I read the same editorial and found disingenuous as you did. They were attacking Walker but didn't want it to stick so they attacked Obama to take away whatever sting they originally intended! When your "BOY" is not doing so well......you focus on another so the spotlight doesn't shine so bright on your favored child!
Anyone know how how the MJS circulation demographics break out? Assuming the paper cannot endorse Walker (given that he has failed every benchmark they set for his performance as governor), they risk alienating their subscription base in the collar counties by endorsing Burke. That puts Kaiser, Haynes, et al., in a tough spot: their own integrity vs. the financial future of the business. I predict they'll bail like they did in 2012, when they made no POTUS or Senate picks. How very courageous and Pulitzer-worthy.
Post a Comment