The Gall of the Wisconsin State Journal

Below is my letter to the editor of the Wisconsin State Journal regarding the paper's decision to run, on the day that Walker signed his budget into law, an opinion piece lambasting supporters of the recalls and painting them as motivated only by anger, partisanship and stubbornness. I don't count on the State Journal to provide much in terms of real commentary; the paper is a corporate mouthpiece and they rarely stray from their dollared script.  But I did expect them to at least address the topic of the budget on the day Walker signed the bill, and I did not expect them to so soundly disrespect the concerns of their readers.  Needless to say, I was disappointed in their editorial perspective and felt compelled to share my opinion. As most of you know,I've got a couple of working mottos - and one of them is this:

If you don't have anything nice to say, 

you have identified a topic about which you are morally obligated to speak at length.

So here's my two cents, and I encourage anyone who agrees that the recall efforts are not, in fact, a waste of time, but a moral imperative, to write the editor as well.

Update:  The editor, Scott Milfred, was kind enough to respond to my concerns and I have included our exchange below, and informed him that I've done so, to which he did not object.

------------------------------

To: The Wisconsin State Journal

Re: Rampant recalls wrong (6/26)

Dear Editor,
 

I was shocked and disgusted to turn to today’s opinion page and find a giant photo and opinion piece, Rampant recalls wrong, just above an insulting cartoon depicting those opposed to Gov. Walker's budget as senseless chickens squawking about.  Of all days, you chose the day Walker signs his budget to announce that you - like he (surprise!) - feel the recalls are a distraction and a waste of time.  I was even more disgusted when I found the article online under the title "The gall of recalls."

Let's set aside the obvious: your consistently editorializing reportage and the hypocrisy of the fact that Walker himself, when elected through a recall election to the seat of County Executive, called recalls “patriotic” and made a tv ad praising recalls as the people's effort to "take their government back."  Apparently, recalls are only patriotic if the person being recalled is a Democrat.

I disagree with the content of the editorial, and that’s fine. We don’t have to agree. But your editorial is offensive because its central assumption (that foes of Walker want to recall him – and certain justices because they’re “mad” at him or for purely political reasons) trivializes the very real concerns that  Wisconsin citizens - and not just public workers - have about Walker's disingenuous budget, corporatist agenda and refusal to communicate with his constituents.

Worse, though, it angers me that this is the piece you chose to run ON THE DAY WALKER SIGNED THE BUDGET. Of all the editorial possibilities this day provided you,  your choice to trivialize the passionate and informed concerns of so many of your readers is insulting at best and a pandering journalistic ruse at worst. By posting this piece today, you shift public attention from the place it should be - on the budget and its catastrophic potential for Wisconsin - and point your own finger of shame at the people who dare to stand up for their state to protect and preserve democracy. What gall indeed. Shame on you.

I received my renewal notice in the mail this week. Don’t hold your breath for my check.

Heather DuBois Bourenane

This cartoon by Paul Hand was just below the editorial, which did little to soften my fury.

UPDATE       28 June 2011

This is the reply I received from the Wisconsin State Journal by email:

Subject

RE: The gall indeed

Thanks for the feedback.

I really don't think it's such a dastardly position to take that rampant recalls are not a good thing from Wisconsin, regardless of whether it's the left or right launching them.

And clearly you are mad at Walker, no? Are you really suggesting anger at Walker over his striping of collective bargaining rights isn't a key factor driving the recalls?

Heck, we are even mad at Walker for some of his dumb moves. And we like some of what he's doing. While we endorsed Walker for governor, we endorsed more Democrats than Republicans for the Legislature. We are fans of split government.

We think offering and allowing a diversity of views on our Opinion page is a good thing for our community and democracy. If you think we are shameful for doing so, I can accept that. But I really think you are reading WAY into one opinion piece that you disagree with. I read opinions on the Opinion page every day that I disagree with. That's because we give preference to publishing reader views that differ from our own. I would find the Opinion page pretty boring if it only reinforced my views every day.

Regardless, if you really think rampant recalls -- those launched by the left and the right -- are good for Wisconsin, why don't you join the conversation and send us a 200-word letter to the editor that includes your address and phone number for verification.

Sincerely,

Scott Milfred
editorial page editor
Wisconsin State Journal
(608) 252-6110
smilfred@madison.com
www.scottmilfred.com
Twitter: @ScottMilfred

and my response to that reply:

Dear Mr. Milfred,

Is this a form response or are you talking to me? Because I don't get the impression from your note that you actually read my letter, which addresses (primarily) your editorial gall in ignoring the budget and making absurd claims about "rampant" recalls (before the recall elections even begin!) on the day Walker signed the budget. As my letter makes clear, it would have been preferable to catalog your reasons for loving Walker's budget (and vetoes! you had access to these with plenty of time to editorialize!) than to ignore the news of the day on your opinion page. 

I find it laughably hypocritical (literally: I laughed aloud at your letter) that you would reply to readers who offer angry and dissenting opinions by saying "a diversity of opinions is a good thing..." so how dare you object to my point of view!  Good one.

I don't expect - or desire - to agree with the editorials from the WSJ; I know you tow the Lee Enterprises line and therefore cannot be considered a reliable news source. So don't flatter yourself by thinking my subscription was a reflection of the paper's content; I subscribed to the Sunday-only Wisconsin State Journal for the coupons (because I'm a fat-cat state worker who's living so high on the hog that I can't even go to the grocery store without my folder full of clippings). News, I get elsewhere. As of Sunday, I also get my coupons elsewhere.

As to your question about being mad at Walker: of COURSE people are mad at Walker, and anger is a motivating force in politics. But to assume that the anger - and not the reasons we are angry - is what drives the need to force him out of office, is precisely what is offensive about your initial opinion piece, and also the email you just sent me.

Sincerely,
Heather

PS There's a typo in your message, so if it is a form response you might want to edit it before you send it to others. It should say "WAY too much..." I believe.  While you're editing, you might also do something about the terribly condescending tone of it, too. People who read the opinion page don't really need to be told that conflicting views are a good thing, for instance.

Reply #2 from Scott Milfred (28 June 2011)

Subject

RE: RE: The gall indeed

Heather,

We most definitely have not ignored the budget. Since you say you don't read the newspaper often, that's probably why you missed all of this. Our top priority, in fact, for this year on the Opinion page has been fixing the state budget mess. And we have weighed in on the state budget dozens of times in just the last few months -- back when it mattered, before the guv signed the thing. WE supported some aspects of the budget and railed against other parts of it.

You really seem to be unloading on the newspaper because you disagreed with one editorial. And what precisely is the Lee Enterprises line? We supported gay marriage before Russ Feingold had the guts to, we're pro-choice, pro-medical marijuana, pro-alternative energy, support most school referendums, want to clean up the embarrassing Supreme Court, fight for open and good government, support a higher beer and gas tax, opposed the Las Vegas loophole -- a key Democratic priority last session -- and just endorsed more Democrats than Republicans in the last (regular, not recall) election.

Is this the terrible agenda you dislike?

Sincerely,

Scott Milfred
editorial page editor
Wisconsin State Journal
(608) 252-6110
smilfred@madison.com
www.scottmilfred.com
Twitter: @ScottMilfred

And response #2 from yours truly:

Dear Scott,

Thanks for your note. I'm not entirely clear on why you're trying to engage me in debate on these issues, considering I was just trying to submit a letter to the editor for publication. I feel compelled to respond, though, to clarify a couple of things, since, for an editor, you do not seem to read particularly closely.

I did not accuse you of ignoring the budget. I simply said (which is clear, again, if you read my original letter) that it is an absurdly telling editorial choice that you would post a piece on the "wrongness" of the recalls on the day Walker signed the budget. 

I also never said I don't read the paper; I do, daily, online (though I admit I go to the Capital Times page first). I said I don't expect to agree with your editorials, and that I don't  consider you a reliable source of news due to your established conservative bias, which taints and distorts most of your reporting. My concerns with Lee Enterprises have to do with the increasingly conservative tone of the paper, and its apparent influence over Madison Newspaper's drive to render obsolete and relegate it to online-only the paper I trusted much more for independent news, the Cap Times.

Your laundry list of things with which I might agree is interestingly irrelevant to my letter and my concerns, and your assumption that I am not aware of these things, is (yet again) annoyingly condescending. Your decision to promote yourself, rather than address the responsibility you bear in shaping the political discourse in Madison and throughout the state, speaks volumes.

I find it ridiculous that you accuse me of "unloading on the paper because I disagree with one editorial."  I wrote a letter to the editor on the topic of one of editorial, which ran last Sunday. It's my understanding that this is the customary approach in a Letter to the Editor. If you prefer, in the future, that your readers address every single item with which they disagree, you might consider lifting your 200-word limit restriction.  I have disagreed with countless editorials that you have provided, but that has little to do with the topic of the letter I wrote on Sunday.

If you're trying to win back a customer, by the way, you're taking a curious approach. 

Heather

PS: Just so you know, I maintain a blog, Monoloques of Dissent, where I make public my open letters to Scott Walker and others.  I have posted this correspondence on my page, with links to the editorial in  your paper, as I thought your previous response was an autoreply. I plan to post this reply as well, unless you have reason to request otherwise. I assume that as editor of the opinion page you do not have a problem with your response to my letter being made public.

 Reply #3 from Scott Milfred (28 June 2011)

Subject  RE: RE: RE: The gall indeed
I've been trying to address your concerns.

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor, it needs to be 200 words. We limit the length so more voices can be heard. Also, you would need to include both your phone number and address for verification.

I'm glad we agree on my long laundry list! :)

Scott Milfred
editorial page editor
Wisconsin State Journal
(608) 252-6110
smilfred@madison.com
www.scottmilfred.com
Twitter: @ScottMilfred

And response #3 from yours truly:

Dear Scott,

I do appreciate that  you've been trying to address my concerns, but you did ask me a number of direct questions in your email, which I interpret (rightfully) as engaging me in debate about these topics.  Apologies, however, if I mistook these questions for literal ones if you meant them rhetorically. If, however, the latter is the case, I think your response was even more condescending than I originally thought.

Here is an abbreviated 195-word version of my initial letter which I hope you will consider including - sorry I didn't meet the word requirement the first time around; thought I came close. But being brief is not my specialty.
--------------------------------

Dear Editor,

I was disgusted to find Rampant recalls wrong, just above a cartoon depicting those opposed to Gov. Walker's budget as senseless chickens squawking about.  I was even more disgusted to find the article online under the title "The gall of recalls” (which you have since changed).

Your editorial is offensive because its central assumption (that the recalls are motivated simply by people being “mad,” or for purely political reasons) trivializes the very real concerns that taxpaying Wisconsin citizens have about Walker's blatant dishonesty, unconscionable budget, corporatist agenda and refusal to communicate with his constituents.

Worse, though, is that this is the piece you chose to run on the day Walker signed the budget.  Of all your editorial possibilities, your choice to disregard the informed concerns of so many citizens is insulting at best and a pandering journalistic ruse at worst. By posting this piece today, you shift public attention from the place it should be - on the budget and its catastrophic potential for Wisconsin - and point your own finger of shame at the people who dare to stand up for their state to protect and preserve democracy. What gall indeed. Shame on you.

Heather DuBois Bourenane
(address, phone - again)

 Reply #4 from Scott Milfred (28 June 2011)

I think you are reading into my responses. Maybe I am reading into yours. That's one of the downsides of email. In any case, your letter looks fine to me, and thanks for the verification info.

Scott Milfred
editorial page editor
Wisconsin State Journal
(608) 252-6110
smilfred@madison.com
www.scottmilfred.com
Twitter: @ScottMilfred

 Response #4 from me (28 June 2011)

That could very well be, Scott. I do tend to read into things. 

I just realized, though, that I forgot to add the postscript to my original letter, which I feel is important!  Can you please make sure this gets added if you do chose to print my letter:

My subscription ends today.

Good thing I had 5 words left!

In any case, none of this is intended to be personal, and I hope it didn't come across as such. My disappointment with the paper is a reflection on the editorial tone and content of the paper more generally, and of the decision to run this particular opinion piece on a day when you were well aware that many Wisconsin citizens were extremely invested in, and devastated by, the signing into law of a bill they view as detrimental enough to the welfare of the state that it warrants a recall.

Look at that! I was just kind of brief. That's new for me. 

Thanks for considering the letter,
Heather

Update (6/28/2011): I came home to a very cordial message from Mr. Milfred on my answering machine, saying he enjoyed our exchange this afternoon and that my letter will be printed in the Sunday paper. Thanks, Scott! I'll look for it online! 

Update (7/4/2012): My letter, sans postscript, did appear in yesterday's paper, and online here.