September 3, 2011

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel story is eerily familiar

This here, very top of the (electronic) fold at the moment.

Thought I read about that somewhere, one entire week ago.

Can't get no respect.

Come to think of it, you read about publication here first too.

7 comments:

John Foust said...

Yeah, back in the day, the reporters would need to wait around for the competing newspaper in town to reveal a story, or for gossip of such to reach them before any publication, then they'd get around to verifying the facts in the other story on their own in order to write their own version. Back then, the competing newspaper reporter wouldn't get a cut of the second reporter's wages, either, so at least that has stayed the same.

Teh Internetz optimized the problem in several ways. One, the competing newspaper disappears. Two, the bloggers scoop the stories. Three, the remaining reporter gets to surf teh Internetz for story ideas. Because they have editors and need to justify their pay, they tend to do more background fact-checking than the bloggers and might even find a new lace skirt for a story.

This process could be improved if the bloggers began to write better ledes and in inverted-pyramid style. This leads to another time-saving Internet innovation known as copypasta.

But the bloggers just do it for the groupies. Even Althouse found her special one this way.

illusory tenant said...

I wish they'd push this one.

illusory tenant said...

On the other hand:

"This is not news. This was clear to anyone who read the opinion." - reader comment

But it's far from clear because the order's reasoning is based on the premise that the bill was not published. How else could the majority have relied primarily on Goodland v. Zimmerman for its proposition that the circuit court may not enjoin publication (even though publication -- the merest of mere formalities -- was the only remaining step in the legislative process).

John said...

It was weird that they pushed the angle that Walker could have gone back 3 months to get payments and not the only Justice who was in the Legislature that was a bad idea to run contrary to the Wisconsin constitution. Talk about missing the forest through the trees.

illusory tenant said...

I give them credit for running a backgrounder approaching legal analysis. It's not something you see very often, anywhere. This was the most important case in constitutional law in a long, long time in which a majority of the Supreme Court literally invented its jurisdiction. Either the local papers don't believe their readers will understand this case's -- two cases, if you accept the majority's remarkable inventions -- process and methodology or else they don't employ anyone capable of explaining it. Or they have so few knowledgeable reporters in the Capitol spread so thin they simply no longer have the resources to commit.

Anonymous said...

If the GOP Administration had retroactively taken the increase in pension and health care contributions, the resulting change in paychecks before the recalls could have been the difference Dem-controlled senate. Walker (or at least Huebsch) must have seen that, and maybe the Fitzgeralds, and it was that group former legislator Prosser wanted to get a timely ruling for....makes one wonder what kind of contact went on between that group and Prosser-as he would have been better able to discern this than the other equally Machiavellian but less politically savvy conservative justices. Looking forward to results of open records inquiry, supposing one can get a response that isn't hide the ball like Darling's.

illusory tenant said...

I think I'd give Prosser the benefit of the doubt in this instance in terms of his adhering to legal principle. The law is clear that Act 10's publication had not been effected. On the other hand shame on Prosser for joining the other three's unwarrantedly contemptuous treatment of Judge Sumi. Prosser has a lamentable history of mitigating at least one of his colleagues' insulting and defamatory activities, telling us to "get over" Gableman's unethical political campaigning.