Uppity Wisconsin
Making Wisconsin Progressive Again
UW Journalists Fabricate the US Government Accountability Office's Conclusion on High Speed Rail
Sun, 08/16/2009 - 1:15pm | SocratesChildren
UW Journalists Violate Several Ethical Principles of Journalism, but WPR maintains partnership with WCIJ
Open Letter to Wisconsin Public Radio
...this July 22 radio program made me wonder about the ties that WPR has created to this group called the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism....
By Bill Sell
Introduction and Open Letter
Dear Wisconsin Public Radio
Re: "Questions remain as state pushes ahead with rail line," by Lexie Clinton of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, with Andy Hall and Jim Packard. Web: July 21 and Radio: July 22, 2009.
After listening to the July 22 Larry Meiller show, in which Jim Packard led a discussion about high speed rail, I went to the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism's web page and read the full report. I also researched the sources.
My findings trouble me.
As a life-long Wisconsin Public Radio fan, from Jerry Bartell (Wisconsin School of the Air) to now, maintaining my several-years membership in the Ideas Network, I am disturbed by the shenanigans of WCIJ.
The Ideas' Network has a policy of airing all the viewpoints. Heart and soul, I support WPR as a breath of fresh air in a manipulative media world.
And, I love Wisconsin Public Radio because of its commitment to journalism, and I applaud that they are willing to entertain all the voices. But this July 22 radio program made me wonder about the ties that WPR has created to this group called the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.
Jim Packard called WCIJ a "partner" with the Wisconsin Public Radio. The Center describes itself as a service to the state operated by the University of Wisconsin School of Journalism. And when he introduced his guests as "investigative journalists" and a "partner" I assumed that the reporters would try to be above the fray, covering issues with integrity.
The Allegations
What I found in WCIJ's radio and web reports was
- fraudulent reporting,
- a revision of an official report,
- a dismissal and a revision of the conclusions of that report,
- shallow analysis of State transportation policy,
- omissions of fact, and
- an unbalanced jury of "authorities."
Why, I asked myself, would principals and students of the University of Wisconsin School of Journalism do this to the citizens of our State? And why is WPR involved with WCIJ at all?
Truth be told, I am a transit advocate and I report to my readers about transportation policies. As an advocate I feel the obligation to lay out evidence and reasons for my views. I expect no less of a journalist.
But the WCIJ report failed the people on several levels. And so I did the research necessary to correct the record.
A Series of Commentaries.
Part 1. Fraud. Fraudulent journalism report spreads media virus to dozens of newspapers, launched from Wisconsin Public Radio's Larry Meiller show.
Part 1 is the first of my several commentaries on the July 22 High Speed Rail report from WCIJ to WPR.
I will soon publish more about this WCIJ report - about the content, the Governor's transportation strategy, the debate about reducing congestion, the use of tendentious language in a journalism environment, and lack of common sense. I will share with WCJI some resources available to any journalist who is interested in studying transportation policy as it is being debated today.
The author is a life-long Milwaukee resident. Founder and principal of a 33 year old downtown Milwaukee business serving editors and authors nationwide. Founding Member Bay View Neighborhood Association. Founder of Transit Matters. Steering Committee Coalition for Advancing Transit. Member Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin. Shepherd Express Community Activist of the Year, 2007. Member, Public Policy Forum. Associate Member, Investigative Reporters and Editors.
Tags:
Normal 0
We expect the lifting of phrases and words out of context for the purpose of propaganda. We’ve learned from the current use of phrases like “death panels” that slanting intent is effective in moving forward certain agendas. However, investigative journalism is expected to be unbiased, especially when supervised by university professors whose role it is to insure the cultivation of intellectual honesty in their students. The obvious misrepresentation of the GAO report on rail can only be viewed as something that was either flagrantly inept or completely biased. It should never have been aired on WPR. Moreover, this episode points to a need to understand the current procedures that WPR have in place that determines the worthiness and truthfulness of any report it chooses to air.
I’ve lost some trust in two public institutions.
JT
To take this thread in a slightly different direction, I have noticed some other apparent conflicts of interest with WPR, specifically in regard to energy issues. WPR's coverage of renewable energy issues has seemed rather one-sided, and there seems to be an awful lot of corporate sponsorships from the electricity distribution industry and its utility-backed, green-washed political action agencies, such as Focus on Energy and Clean Wisconsin, and particularly Excel Energy, and other businesses like American Transmission that have even more obvious agendas.
I have contacted WPR to find out what kind of money these agencies are contributing, thinking that this should be a matter of public record. No way! I also raise this question of one-sideness from time to time on talk shows and usually get rebuffed or more likely, cut off before I get to make my point. Does anyone truly think that WPR can take these corporate sponsorships without allowing this to affect their coverage of public energy issues? These same companies and agencies are known to advertise in the written press and demand editorial censorship over journalism that is hostile to their interests if media wish to continue to receive their ad business. Are not they likely to demand similar concessions for their sponsorships of public radio?
Don't misconstrue my position. As a "real" environmentalist, I think there are serious questions about the feigned greenness of "renewable" energy technology. A true accounting of much of this renewable hype shows it is more about jobs, growth, and control over energy distribution by corporate monopolies, than about any concern with the natural world.
I have become quite suspicious of the journalism of WPR lately and am not quite as confident in their version of truth. They are after all employees of the UW system, and the UW relies heavily on grants from the corporate world. It is not surprising to me that the Journalism School is tainted with the taste of money and power that infects the enire UW system, another institution for which jobs, growth and control are more important than truth.
Thanks Bill for exposing a fraud. The UW-Madison School of Journalism has infected perhaps the purest, most credible, and widely available state and local news source – WPR – with the worst brand of journalism out there.
Most disturbing is that this behavior originated from an academic institution. The UW-Madison School of Journalism, in every of its proclivities, should be exercising nothing but the most credible, ethical, and responsible journalistic practices.
By allowing this to take place, not only has UW tainted a highly credible news source, but also has signaled ill preparation of students to join the ethical crucible that is our largely for-profit media world with integrity and credibility.
I would urge WPR to end this “partnership” with UW immediately such that listeners can once again rely on WPR as they did in the past.
I would urge the institutional powers that be at the behemoth that is UW-Madison to exert pressure to create abrupt institutional change before these practices do irreparable damage to our State’s flagship.
Perhaps the students should stay in the classroom, for now, where mistakes are a part of the learning process. And certainly, the professors involved should meditate to renew their professional judgment in consideration of the far reaching implications of what they have done.
I look forward to your development of this story.
Who pays the bills for WCIJ and Larry Meiller?