Wisconsin's Press

[CommonSense]

I thought this was amusing after reading the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s editorial on CCW and seat belt laws. For your reading pleasure:
------------------------------
Where we stand at the Journal Sentinel

These are the tenets of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's editorial policy:
· We are independent, beholden to no special interest or political party. The roots of this pledge extend far back into Milwaukee's history.
Lucius W. Nieman, who founded The Milwaukee Journal in 1882, promised his readers that The Journal "will be the outspoken, independent organ of the people against all that is wrong."
Nieman's successor as top executive of the Journal, Harry J. Grant, made an equally plainspoken vow of independence: "The Journal has got to remain a simple, clean thing. A newspaper shouldn't let anyone put a leash on it." Grant also said, "Go for the truth, wherever you find it, and to hell with right and left."
· We have an overriding concern for the best interests of the city and state.
The late Irwin Maier, retired chairman of The Journal Company, once said that The Journal had traditionally "stood alongside the city's leading businessmen, for clean and efficient government."
That concept was articulated more fully in 1962, after Maier directed The Journal Company's purchase of the Milwaukee Sentinel. At that time, the company issued this statement:
"The new Milwaukee Sentinel . . . will be aggressive in the people's interest. It will be bound to no political party or special interest groups. Its policies will be determined by men and women . . . who are dedicated to the best interests of our community and state."
· We believe in the American free enterprise system and minimal governmental interference with business and finance.
As economist Milton Friedman put it: "The free market is the onlymechanism that has ever been discovered for achieving participatory democracy."
· We are conservative on fiscal issues.
We believe that the power to tax must be vigilantly checked. The government that governs best is frugal and levies taxes reluctantly.
· We believe that a just society must have compassion for the unfortunate, that a responsible society must erase any inequities that impede access to employment, and that a wise society must be skeptical of policies that diminish initiative.
We see self-reliance as a primary virtue, matched only by compassion for those who have been deprived of self-sufficiency and are in need of charitable assistance.
· We will be defensive of the rights of individuals as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
But we also recognize that with rights come duties. So we hold a corollary belief in the responsibility of individuals for their personal actions.
· We believe that diversity unites us all for our ultimate role as shareholders of the planet.
Thus, anything that separates us also weakens us. The birthright of all people is equal opportunity.
· We support a strong national defense.
If we are to remain the home of the free and the world's beacon of democracy, we must be able to stand up to tyrants, terrorists and criminals.
· We will be a tenacious enemy of violence, crime and fraud.
· We will try to lead our readers to the truth.
We believe that progress thrives on decisive recommendations. But we also believe that we must constantly police our own prejudices, particularly as they relate to individuals or causes we have grown to either respect or distrust.
· We will strive to be accurate and fair.
In many ways, all of these tenets are echoes of precepts expressed in 1837 in the first issue of the Sentinel, Wisconsin's oldest continuous business:
"We shall strive to make our paper a disseminator of facts, asserter of the truth, a vindicator of innocence and virtue, a censor of vice, an advocate of just claims of settlers, a promoter of harmony and social order in the community, a defender of rights of honest occupants, a detector of fraud, imposture and crime, and a vigilant sentinel on the ramparts of liberty and democracy."
We believe those are still worthy goals for any newspaper.
Ultimately, the responsibility for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and its editorial policy rests with the publisher and the chairman of the board of Journal Communications. They, in turn, delegate to the editors the duty of establishing the editorial and news policies of the newspaper on a day-to-day basis.
We recognize that editors and editorial writers are neither wiser nor more moral than other citizens. But editorial writers are in a better position than most people to dedicate time to digging out the facts and evaluating them before issuing judgments.
In passing our opinions on to our readers, we are carrying out a historic mission first assumed by the founders of the earliest newspapers in our original 13 colonies, and today recognized as a primary function of a free press.
The late Harvey W. Schwandner, who held high-level editing positions with both The Journal and the Sentinel, gave this summation of a newspaper's responsibilities:
"The true measurement of a newspaper is how it serves its community. A good newspaper must devote a large part of its resources and manpower to the advancement of public interest.
"But reporting the news is not enough; the responsible press must work zealously for the welfare of its readers and people."
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel responds to that challenge with this final tenet:
· We will be a relentless change agent, determined to fix what is broken, right what is wrong, affirm what is wise and build a better future. Where we stand at the Journal Sentinel

 

[Preacherman]

Hmmm...

Reminds me of the slogan, from the ancient Greek, carved into the wall of the US Post Office in Washington DC. Something to the effect that "Neither rain nor sleet nor dark of night shall stay the fleet-footed couriers from their appointed rounds".

Someone added underneath, once, in spray-paint:

Well, what IS it then?

 

[Monkeyleg]

I worked for the Journal as well as the Sentinel for many years. I found their mid-level managers to be corrupt, thieving, racist, hateful, and petty little men with no particular work ethic.

The journalists and editorialists were slovenly sots glued to ideologies they'd learned by osmosis from listening to Jerry Garcia. This group of intellectual elites at least had the integrity to not steal the desks and typewriters in the middle of the night; they only stole quotes from real journalists from respectable newspapers.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter. Journal Communications Inc. is buying up every print and broadcast outlet in the state.

Pravda, anyone?

 

[CommonSense]

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Editorial for tomorrow:

Editorial: Another flaw in a gun law
From the Journal Sentinel

Law enforcement officers chasing a fleeing vehicle or making a traffic stop can obtain via police radio and computer all sorts of information about the automobile and its owner. But under the concealed-carry bill that Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed, records would be so hush-hush that officers would be barred from learning one vital fact: whether the driver in question has a license to carry a weapon.

This provision - regardless of how a lawmaker feels about the merits of giving ordinary citizens the right to carry hidden weapons - should be reason enough to uphold the veto. Contrary to what the gun lobby likes to imply, concealed-carry license holders aren't model citizens 100% of the time. Occasionally, they do misuse their weapons. Occasionally, they do break the law. And law officers deserve the right to guard against those occasions. The bill puts confidentiality of records ahead of the safety of police officers and sheriff's deputies.

Casey Perry, head of the Wisconsin Troopers Association, pointed out this little-publicized feature of the bill to Doyle in a letter supporting the veto. The association represents members of the State Patrol, who, of course, conduct traffic stops.

In our opinion, the concealed-carry records ought to be open to everybody, just as records about driver's licenses and auto registration are open to all. Such openness, which should be routine for government, would enable journalists, researchers and others to judge how well the law is working. But even if you believe that records about concealed-carry licenses should themselves be concealed from the general public, it is impossible to justify the extension of that secrecy to law officers who put their lives on the line every day.

The measure does permit officers to get concealed-carry information only 1) to confirm that a license produced by a gun holder is valid or that a gun holder who claims to have a valid license, but is not carrying it, actually has one, or 2) to investigate whether a person intentionally made false statements to obtain a license. In other words, police involved in a traffic stop may get the information after, not before, confronting the driver. Afterward may be too late.

Law officers shouldn't be kept in the dark about whether the person they're approaching has a license to carry a gun. The governor's veto of the concealed-carry legislation should be upheld.




From the Nov. 25, 2003 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

 

[Monkeyleg]

HORSEHOCKEY!

The bill provides that permit holder data be available to the DOT. The officer will know if the owner of the vehicle has a permit.

Lying SOB's.

But why not take it a step further? In the interest of "public safety," shouldn't we know where the people who spoon-feed the public such lies live? Let's publish the names and addresses of every reporter and editor of the Journal Sentinel. In the interest of fairness to sexual predators (aren't they some sort of protected species, according to the JS?), let's publish the ages and sexes of all Journal Sentinel employees' children.

Since the Journal Sentinel is nothing more than a socialist rag in disguise, let's also publish what types of jewelry and valuables they own. After all, these JS employees don't have anything to hide, do they? So, let's let every burglar and petty thief in the state know where the good stuff is.

They don't realize what they're doing, but these useful idiots are accelerating the point at which we cannot any longer have polite "political discourse." They are inviting a complete breakdown of the political process.

Time to buy more ammo.

 

[CommonSense]

Hi Monkeyleg: When I read the bill, I thought it was a non-issue anyway. The police will not know whom they are pulling over regardless of all the amendments. A CCW licensee could be driving a friend’s or husband/wife’s car, a rented car, or just a passenger in any car.

“Big Brother†GPS implants would be the only way to address that concern.

I’m not going to tell the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that. I’m just pointing out that their argument wouldn’t end there if they themselves could read.

 

[cracked butt]

"Where We Stand"

I did find that amusing.
It's exactly what the stances of the Urinal Sentinel would be if in an alternate universe where everything is the opposite from ours

I'll read that paper, but I canceled my subscription several years ago, and will not spend a shiny nickel in their direction ever again.

 

[CommonSense]

cracked butt: The most amusing line is:

We will be defensive of the rights of individuals as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
But we also recognize that with rights come duties. So we hold a corollary belief in the responsibility of individuals for their personal actions.

Doesn’t sound anything like their recent editorials, hey?

 

[CommonSense]

A letter sent in to the editors of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

CONCEALED-CARRY LAW
Lawmakers, editors show hypocrisy
Once again I cannot believe the hypocrisy of the Journal Sentinel Editorial Board and some of our state legislators when it comes to passing laws in our state. Now it seems the push is on to pass a primary seat belt law because perhaps 387 lives might have been saved in the past eight years and 20 other states have such a law so we need one, too. Seat belts are known to protect people in accidents and prevent loss of life.
Well, 45 other states already have a law that lets people protect themselves and prevents loss of life, but the Journal Sentinel and some state Democrats do not want that one. In the past eight years, thousands upon thousands of Wisconsinites have been murdered, raped, robbed and assaulted because they were not afforded the opportunity to protect themselves. The simple passage of a concealed-carry law could have prevented hundreds of these.
Instead of being a nanny state passing laws that try to protect people from themselves, why doesn't Wisconsin pass laws that let people protect themselves?
William Frommgen
Hartford