A Call For Civility From the Journal Sentinel?

Guest Column by George Mitchell

During the 2011 hysteria in Madison over Act 10 I sent an email to Journal Sentinel
Managing Editor George Stanley. I observed to Stanley (and others) that opponents of
Governor Scott Walker hurt their cause by resorting to thuggish behavior (death threats, nails in
driveways, obscene graffiti, comparisons of Walker to Hitler, etc.).

Stanley responded that both sides were guilty. When I asked, Are you suggesting that
the behavior of Walker supporters is comparable to that of his opponents? Stanley
responded, in part, I prefer honesty to bulls---. After I sought clarification of that comment,
he wrote, [Y]oure just full of s---, thats all Im saying.
Stanley wasnt finished. For good measure, he recommended I consider turning honestI
like to think that every soul can be saved.
This exchange came to mind as I read David Haynes Sunday Crossroads commentary, A
disagreeable state: Can Wisconsin citizens be civil again? Haynes, the Journal Sentinels
editorial page editor, asked why liberals and conservatives have to be so disagreeable in
discussing policy differences. He suggested taking a time out from demonizing one
another to try to understand one another.
There is much irony in such a theme being advanced by a leading editor at the Journal
Sentinel. Apart from Stanleys decidedly uncivil exchange with me, has Haynes not read
some of the caustic emails Stanley sent this year to readers who objected to the papers
John Doe coverage?
In light of its recent track record, the Journal Sentinel surely should think long and hard
before casting aspersions about a lack of civility. Indeed, the paper itself has contributed
to the divisive climate that Haynes decries.
Nothing illustrates this better than the papers four-year stretch of reporting on John Doe
investigations involving Governor Walker. During that time the paper has trashed many
principles of journalistic fairness.
For example, in the early years of the John Doe Journal Sentinel reporting relied heavily on
sources who transmitted illegally leaked information. Stories cast many individuals in a
negative light, including people who were legally prohibited from comment. The people
portrayed unfavorably in the Journal Sentinel didnt know who had spread negative
information to the paper. For legal and practical reasons, they could not effectively
respond. Consequently, readers received a sliver of information the opposite of
transparency and balance (or journalistic civility).

The papers stream of damaging innuendo was a key ingredient of the decidedly uncivil
stew that contaminated the recall election campaign that Walker faced in 2012. Relying on
Journal Sentinel coverage, Walker opponent Tom Barrett urged the Governor to come
clean. Following Walkers recall election victory, Democratic Party Chair Mike Tate
predicted that because of the John Doe Walker would see the inside of a jail.
Was there an overriding public purpose that justified setting aside the traditional journalistic
principles of transparency, balance, and fairness? None whatsoever. To the contrary,
relying on the unlawful release of selective information corrupted and eroded concepts
central to our justice system. This was anything but civil.
Fast forward to the current phase of the John Doe investigation, one premised on a
"criminal theory" that is at direct odds with federal constitutional jurisprudence. Haynes'
editorial board and Stanleys newsroom are sympathetic to this theory. The result? A series
of articles and editorials that cast a dark cloud over activity that two judges have found to be
legal. The Journal Sentinels reporting and commentary have led several national media
outlets to put Governor Scott Walker at the center of a "scandal." This dogged Walker
throughout his successful re-election campaign. Yet Haynes now positions himself apart
from and distinctly above the rancor and divisiveness spawned in part by the Journal
Sentinel.
Near the end of the recent campaign Haynes personally fell off the civility wagon. A week
prior to the election, an online media outlet (The Wisconsin Reporter) quoted a former
longtime executive at Trek Bicycle Company as claiming Mary Burke had been fired from
the firm. A day later another former Trek executive effectively confirmed this story, thus
exposing the media's failure to examine thoroughly the portion of Burke's resume central to
her campaign. Haynes responded with a lengthy editorial under the mantra "consider the
source." Because the executives have conservative political leanings, the paper judged
them suspect. In an attempt to paper over its failure to vet Burke, Haynes and the Journal
Sentinel effectively framed the news as a last-minute smear.
Haynes essay describes a time when we [knew] and [understood] our fellow citizens
better, and legislators of every stripe [got] to know one another. Set aside, for a moment,
that this amounts to an airbrushing of actual history in Wisconsin and nationally. To the
extent Haynes is correct about bygone days, he also might have referenced an earlier era in
Milwaukee journalism. For example, I recall well the 1960s and 1970s, when I was a
journalism student, a reporter, and later an official in state government. The Milwaukee
Journal of that period, led by editors such as the late Dick Leonard, was a model for the
kind of discourse Haynes advocates. Leonard would not have resorted to the kind of
epithets that Stanley now throws around.
Stanley, Haynes, and other Journal Sentinel editors might consider some
introspection. Rather than blame readers who dispute the paper's approach a recurring
Stanley posture they should go "back to the future" (Haynes' phrase) and consider how
to restore a newspaper worthy of Dick Leonard's stature.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece was originally sent to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial

board. They took a pass on running it.