Open records debate in Wisconsin

Cite your own examples of news slant, right and left. Contribute your own take on the news.

Open records debate in Wisconsin

Unread postby An Objectivist » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:03 pm

I read "Arrogance" and Robert Kohn's "Journalistic Fraud" at the same time (can't stand to read only one non-fiction book at a time), and was surprised how some of the same events were covered in each book. So, being more alert for journalistic slant, I read with interest what I could in the papers about Gov. Scott Walker's recent budget. Controversy arose when something was added to the budget that would... well, do something to Wisconsin's open records law.

Lead paragraphs or other mentions of this said this budget provision would "dismantle" Wisconsin's open records law. The most commonly-used word is "gut" or "gutted." Now, these words in a lead suggest Wisconsin's open records law would have been totally destroyed. On reading further, I've never seen a clear description of what the provision would have done, other than keep certain aspects of the deliberation process immune from open records requests.

I'm left with the impression: The lead (on almost every story mentioning this) says it would destroy open records; the details of the story fail to show how it would do so.

Can anyone provide a link that explains this better? If I could actually find out what this provision would have accomplished (and, granted, it could very well be a terrible idea), I'd like to see if the use of words like "gutted" and "dismantled" are bias in action, or if they are justified.
An Objectivist
New Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:51 pm

Open records debate in Wisconsin

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Return to More Bias and Arrogance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron