Media Trackers: "Our attorneys stand prepared."

Where were they before Mr. Sikma started publishing malicious lies?

Less than prepared, evidently.

Here's what Marquette professor of law Rick Esenberg had to say:

Any suggestion that there is either an action for defamation against either [Media Trackers' Brian Sikma or 620 AM WTMJ's Charlie Sykes] or the basis for a criminal charge is wildly off base given the nature of their remarks and applicable law.

Which was in response [sic] to this:

You said: It was not wrong for Media Trackers to raise the issue.

This outfit did much more than simply raise the issue. Media Trackers' "conservative media analyst" — that's the undeservedly hifalutin title conferred by Wisconsin Public Radio, which devoted an utterly pointless half an hour to him the other day — Brian Sikma reportedly told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: "[Lena Taylor] was, in fact, an accessory to one felon voting on April 5."

And your good pal Charlie Sykes wrote: "Are [Democrats] all fine with Lena Taylor, a respected member of their party in the legislature, being an accessory to voter fraud?"

According to Freer v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., 2004 WI App 201, "'imputation of certain crimes' to the plaintiff" raises a cause of action for defamation in Wisconsin. And there is a certain crime in Wisconsin that would fit Sikma's and Sykes's accusation of "accessory to voter fraud," described in Wis. Stat. § 12.13(1)(h).

Prof. Esenberg offered zero support for his dismissive handwaving.

But who knows, maybe he will be one of Brian Sikma's attorneys.*

In the meantime Mr. Sikma appears intent on measuring the homeless shelter's clothesline, to ensure it's up to municipal building code snuff.

I mean, those homeless people must be guilty of something, right?

* And if so, courtesy the Bradley Foundation, completing the circle.

Why Wisconsin Right to Life was not charged

Further to yesterday's blargh entry, "Bribes" are a wash.

To recap, here's the operative portion of WRtL's email:

The Wisconsin Right to Life and Family Action coalition is offering rewards for volunteers who make an impact over the weekend by educating and encouraging family and friends to vote by absentee ballot. Here are the rewards: $25 Gift Card for any volunteer who can get at least 15 pro-life/pro-family voters to complete an Absentee Ballot Application dated by Tuesday, July 5th.

This is the assistant district attorney's own condensation of the statute:

(1m) Any person who does any of the following violates this chapter:

(a) Offers [or] gives ... anything of value ... to ... any elector, or to ... any other person, in order to induce any elector to ...[v]ote or refrain from voting.

Offer or give. Give or offer. That is, whether the thing of value is given or offered, each action is equally violative of the statute. It is not more violative to give than to offer, nor is it worse to offer than to give.

Yesterday ADA Landgraf decided that it is worse to give than to offer.

Moreover, he decided that it is worse to request than to offer, even though the statute says absolutely nothing about any requesting. And in the course of deciding so, he characterized the statute as follows: "The 'thing of value' need only induce the elector to vote." Italics are his.

Except that is not at all what the statute says. The inducement — or "encouragement," if you will — obtains from the any other person who is offered the thing of value. Contra the ADA's reading, it is not the "thing of value" that provides the inducement to vote; rather, it's the "any other person" who was offered the thing of value who performs the inducement to vote. The latter action is WRtL's "encouragement."

Any person offers a thing of value to any other person, who in turn "induces" an elector to vote. There are three parties in the statute.

I continue to see no way to deny that and it should probably be fixed.

Notably, part of Mr. Landgraf's analysis involves postulating a set of hypotheticals that are very much unlike the circumstances before him. For example he imagines a rally featuring "a national recording artist who would otherwise perform only for persons paying far in excess of a $1 admission fee." That's entirely unlike WRtL's offer, to coin a phrase.

But on the other hand Landgraf concludes that, "fact patterns that are not entirely unlike those presented here may well violate the Election Bribery statute, even if Absentee Balloting is involved." So why not charge WRtL? Throughout Landgraf's analysis, he denotes both what he perceives as the lack of clear guidance in the language of the statute itself and the fact that "no judicial opinions offer guidance to help answer" the question, "What does it mean to induce an elector to vote?"

So should there be a judicial opinion, or will the ADA's opinion suffice?

I expect there will eventually be a judicial opinion, just not today.

I will note that Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., defines inducement as "enticing or persuading another person to take a certain course of action." The word WRtL uses is "encourage." The Pocket OAD, 2nd ed., defines induce as "persuade or influence someone to do something."

Encourage means "give support, confidence, or hope to someone," or "help an activity, belief, etc., to develop." That's not "inducement"?

Additionally, the Milwaukee County district attorney's investigation unearthed a trove of correspondence among WRtL, its partner Wisconsin Family Action, and those groups' "family and friends," detailing the two outfits' objectives. Not only were those outfits' efforts directed at inducing voting, and not only were they directed at inducing voting for sympathetic candidates, they were directed at inducing voting for a specific, named candidate: Republican Senator Alberta Darling.

The longer view takes into consideration the fact that ADA Landgraf had two separate cases on his hands: the one involving WRtL and another involving Wisconsin Jobs Now, which was organizing van rides for prospective voters to City Hall at the starting point to which there was available "refreshments" ("barbeque") if one wanted them. In the latter case Landgraf acknowledged — through testimony provided by, of all people, Media Trackers, which had previously accused Wisconsin Jobs Now of "multiple violations of election law" — there were none of the connections between the three parties contemplated by the statute.

The ADA also makes much of the fact that Wisconsin Jobs Now is aligned with Democratic interests, while Wisconsin Right to Life is aligned with Republican interests (specifically, its interests in incumbent Republican Senator Alberta Darling). Whereas the ADA finds not only no connection between WJN and any specific candidate, he finds no connection between WJN and any specific political party. And whereas WRtL admits its connection to and support of a specific candidate, despite a depiction of its activities as "issue ad[vertising]" which, in another area of election law, is by definition the antithesis of named-candidate advertising.

Landgraf also emphasizes the fact that each of the legal memoranda he solicited from both Wisconsin Right to Life and Wisconsin Jobs Now tended to exonerate from prosecution the activities of the other.

In short the sense conveyed by ADA Landgraf's letter to the circuit court judge is that this escapade, as a whole, is a wash. Offsetting penalties, by the gridiron analogy. Personally I still find the "barbeque" and the "gift cards" circumstances very much distinguishable as applied to the plain terms of the election bribery statute. Mr. Landgraf admits as much but eschews a "common sense" approach in favor of, among other relatively nebulous and extra-textual concepts, his hypothetical situations.

The ADA wasn't wrong — arguably his conclusion not to prosecute isn't unreasonable nor an abuse of his discretion — and it clearly was not an easy decision to arrive at. I reckon that but not for the "barbeque," WRtL would have gotten served a criminal complaint. So thanks to the heroes at Media Trackers — whose own testimony proved that its own accusations were complete bullshit — and the MacGyvers, who seemingly induced the Media Trackers "barbeque" witness* after another Media Trackers principal "refused to cooperate" with the DA's investigation.

In brief: Legal bullet dodged, because politics. They are often difficult to extricate from one another, there remains little question about that.

* Who testified he never even saw, let alone ate, any barbeque. Indeed, Mr. Landgraf's report is worth reading as much for its legal commentary as for its objective portrayal of Media Trackers' pathetic dishonesty.

Media Trackers "scored a PR coup"

DA: "Collins would have been eligible to vote at that time."

"Is it not news that [Wisconsin State Senator] Lena Taylor and her mother are involved in assisting an ineligible felon to vote?" wrote conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes on his blog. "The law was broken when this guy voted. Isn't that a problem?"

You eediots.

So, people, have we learned our Media Trackers lesson yet or what.

"Laughable, painfully amateurish drek." — This space, nine months ago

Things haven't improved any have they.

Media Trackers ["]communications director["] Brian Sikma said he was unaware that the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office would provide information regarding the release dates of inmates.

lolz Jimmy Olsen. And the crack reporters didn't even call to find out.

Then what's maybe worst of all, Media Trackers scammed Journal Communications, Inc. into putting this everywhere. Unbelievable.

Of Media Trackers' false claims and dishonesty

"Dedicated to quality fact-based journalism." — Media Trackers

[Right-wing front group Media Trackers] could have clearly read his sentencing information such as his Judgment of Conviction. They could have called Probation and Parole to find out if/when he was on "paper." They could have also placed a simple call to the Milwaukee County Sheriff's office.

But Media Trackers didn't do any of these things, notes Cory Liebmann.

Statement of Senator Lena Taylor

For the past two weeks, my family and I have been defamed and accused of crimes by Media Trackers and by members of the mainstream press in Wisconsin. Completely untrue and unexamined allegations were publicized, broadcast, and printed without regard for the truth or discovering the truth. Finally today, some facts have been reported to the public, rather than wild conjecture and assumption. This kind of reporting should have been done before any veracity was ever given to the Media Trackers allegations.

With today’s news, I demand an immediate apology to my mother, Lena J. Taylor, my family, and myself from Media Trackers and any other news source, including Journal Communications, Charlie Sykes, etc., that willingly reported outright false information, made serious allegations about our character, and did little or no research on these allegations. Given the amount of broadcast time and print space given to these false accusations, I would demand equal time and space to restore the harm done to my reputation and credibility and that of my mother and her organization. These past days have forced me to begin examining all available legal options against accusers who willingly slander and libel my family without regard for facts and truth.

Via Facebook.

Milwaukee ADA concludes: "Bribes" are a wash

According to Daniel Bice:

Wisconsin Right to Life had been accused of offering rewards for volunteers who signed up sympathetic voters in the State Senate recall races. The investigation found that no one actually ended up requesting or receiving the gift or gas cards being offered.

Except the law doesn't require "actual" requesting or receiving.

Oh well. That's prosecutorial discretion for ya.

Landgraf: "[T]hey were acting in good faith."

I'll concede WRtL was acting in faith, but sans the qualifier.

eta: ADA Landgraf's review.*

Reportedly some alleged conservatives are celebrating its liberal statutory construction. As is their wont: only when it's convenient.

* The Media Trackers (pp. 4-6) testimony is pretty hilarious. Its "operative," Colin Roth,** managed to help convince Landgraf to hold Wisconsin Jobs Now! — which outfit Media Trackers had previously accused of "flagrant violations of the law" — harmless. Good work.

Yet Media Trackers continues with its false accusations elsewhere.

So while I'm disappointed Landgraf didn't file charges — the case would have been fascinating on appeal — his letter is chock full of MT comedy.

** s/b Collin, apparently.

Milwaukee Co. district attorney "sloppy" at best

Amusing:

At best the wording of [ADA Bruce Landgraf's] letter was cumbersome and sloppy. At worst it was written with the purposeful intent to lead the readers of the letter (including journalists and the general public) into believing that [MacGyver dude] consulted and coordinated with [Media Trackers dude] and then provided the DA with the name of Media Trackers’ source.

Via MacGyver.

I'm sure they'll get their "correction" as soon as Chris Liebenthal gets his.

Reporter: "Now Lena Taylor's mad at me."

Journal Communications, Inc.'s TMJ-4 teevee's latest report.

Don't let these reporters, who lay down with and continue to lie down with Media Trackers, make this story into one all about themselves.

This story is about false accusations of criminality, from which Media Trackers is attempting to beat a hasty retreat to concern trolling, by now claiming it's just relieved Sen. Taylor wasn't taken advantage of.

Meet Charlie Sykes's "fraudulent" petitioners

Accusations of recall fraud fall flat:

"I feel like it's bad because you're judging a book by its cover and you don't know anything about us," said Ms. Love, who is 20.

Got that right. They saw your picture. That's all they needed to know.

Where are the photos with ID cards? The JS article says the DPW provided them, but why not show them and let viewers/readers decide? Media Trackers — here's some video evidence, we'll give you our opinion and even put a ? in the title to make it clear we're not making factual claims. JS — here's a claim the Democrats are making. We believe it, therefore, we don't have to show you the supposed "proof" the Democrats provided.

Nice try, counselor, but your reckless desperation is showing.

That's former Mike Gableman clerk/current Rick Esenberg associate — at the latter's Bradley Foundation-funded Kulturkampf law boutique, incidentally — Tom Kamenick demanding the two young ladies relinquish their right to privacy and assume the burden of production. Seems to me the burden is on Charlie Sykes, Media Trackers, and their disciples and in that production they all of them failed rather spectacularly.

Full retraction and apology from Charlie Sykes in the morning, I'm sure.

Stellar work, you Bradley Foundation "intellectuals."

Another coup for Media Trackers' Brian Sikma

What sort of man reads Media Trackers?

Media Trackers needs to put up or shut up

Recently we had Rick Esenberg, a professor of law at Marquette University, accusing nine Madison doctors of "fraud" even though there was no finding of any fraudulent behavior on the part of the doctors.

Then we had Prof. Esenberg's fellow Bradley Foundation beneficiary Charlie Sykes accuse two young women in Milwaukee of "recall fraud," even though both were well beyond voting age. Today we have this:

"[Wisconsin State Senator Lena Taylor] was, in fact, an accessory to one felon voting on April 5 when that individual, whenever that person was ineligible to vote under Wisconsin statutes," said Brian Sikma, a spokesman for Mequon-based Media Trackers.

Intentionally procuring, assisting, or advising someone to vote at any election if that person does not have the necessary elector qualifications is itself a felony. In other words, Mr. Sikma is accusing Sen. Taylor of committing a felony. Where's Sikma's evidence? He has none, because:

"At best, this is gross negligence that undermines the integrity of the election process," the Mequon-based Brian Sikma said.

Well, which is it? Negligence — "gross" or otherwise — denotes the absence of intent. So basically this character is accusing Sen. Taylor of a crime, but then he claims "at best" she didn't commit a crime. All of which is dutifully repeated, without any explanation, by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Apparently Brian Sikma doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, but he did manage to convince the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel to generate a headline referring to voter fraud "allegations."

What they don't tell you is there's no substance to any of these "allegations" and there's no such thing in Wisconsin as "negligently" assisting someone to vote, even if Sen. Taylor had anything to do with the voting at all, and indeed there are no facts presented supporting the proposition that she did have anything at all to do with the voting.

Suffice to say this is not exactly local journalism's finest moment.

And we have months more of this B.S. to look forward to, where you can accuse anybody of anything you want, without facts or argument.

Pathetic.

Charlie Sykes: "Media front man for the GOP"

Milwaukee Magazine's press critic Erik Gunn:

What's the threshold for reporting claims and allegations produced by someone [Media Trackers] furthering a partisan agenda? . . . Earlier, the same group had pushed what turned out to be a phony claim of fraud in the signing of election recall petitions.

Good question, and, ya think the Journal-Sentinel learned its lesson?

Don't count on it. We have law professors pushing phony claims of fraud.

So what reason is there to expect any better from a newspaper?

"The charges are nonsense."

Citizen Action of Wisconsin's Robert Kraig writes:

This week, the Republican Party leveled charges that the nonprofit grass-roots organization I lead has "coordinated" with Sandy Pasch's campaign. The accusation has been backed up with not one shred of evidence of the charge as it is defined in campaign law. Nonetheless, many media outlets ran with the story, and it even rated an editorial in the Journal Sentinel. The charges are nonsense and will be dismissed after the election.

This is true. The WISGOP's complaints are laughable for their lack of substance. What is less laughable is the Journal-Sentinel helpfully regurgitating every baseless claim served up by paid conservative Republican operative/hacks masquerading as objective news sources like the MacGyver Institute, Media Trackers, and Wisconsin Reporter.

Theirs is a sleazy game, and the Journal-Sentinel a willing accomplice.

Charlie Sykes: Justice Prosser is a political phony

"Follow the logic."— Ancient WISGOP saying

Stephens has gone out of her way to define herself as the "open-minded" candidate . . . Her self-proclaimed "open mind" and "unbiased" approach ring hollow when viewed in the larger context of her actions. — Thus sayeth "a new group in town"

Here's our medium wave squawker calling Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Marla Stephens "a political phony" because "a new group in town" has brought some really serious charges of hypocrisy! "Good catch," enthuses the local wing-nut "blogfather." Let's examine the record, before the EPA adds Sykes to its schedule of air pollutants.*

Hypocrisy, Count I:

Stephens released the names of thirteen former and current state legislators who have endorsed her campaign. All are Democrats including Joe Wineke, former Chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party.

It's a pity neither Charlie Sykes nor his "new group in town" checked Justice David Prosser's own website, which lists endorsements from dozens (75 to be exact) of elected officials. Every single one of them is a Republican (including some real dandies, like Glenn Grothman).

Plus two former executive branch officials — one is the ridiculously partisan operative Margaret Farrow — both of whom are Republicans.

Verdict: Prosser FTW.

Hypocrisy, Count II:

Since 1999, Stephens has contributed $2,875 to Wisconsin political campaigns. All of Stephens' contributions have been to Democratic and liberal candidates.

In fact only $1,725 of that, in increments no larger than $100, was to candidates running for partisan offices. Meanwhile Justice Prosser was donating $3,150 to "Republican and conservative candidates."**

Verdict: Prosser FTW.

Hypocrisy, Count III:

She describes herself as "a member of the Democratic party, on and off, throughout [her] life."

She did say that, but she wasn't "describing herself" as such, she was responding to Frederica Freyberg's direct question, "What is your [political affiliation]." That phony hypocrite! — answering truthfully.

Yet only days later, Justice Prosser told the same interviewer:

Well, let me say this. I have the most partisan background of any member of the court.

And indeed Justice Prosser was positively advancing this self-description of his own volition, as his averment was in response to Ms. Freyberg's inquiry, "What is your judicial philosophy."

What he meant was he was not only a member of the Republican Party, he was a Republican legislator in the Wisconsin State Assembly for 18 years, including six as minority leader and two as speaker.

Moreover, exactly as fits Charlie Sykes & Co.'s groundless allegations of "political phoniness" and hypocrisy against Atty. Stephens, Justice Prosser went on to disassociate himself from those former political affiliations for the purposes of fair and impartial judging.

And rightly so, to the equal credit of both candidates.

Therefore those affirmations of impartiality made by both Justice Prosser and Atty. Stephens are identical, the only difference being Prosser having raised the issue without being urged to do so.

"Gone out of his way," to coin a phrase.

Verdict: Prosser FTW.

Finally:

Media Trackers is a Wisconsin-based organization dedicated to media accountability, government transparency, and quality fact-based journalism.

Not quite. Rather, this "new group in town" is dedicated to laughable, painfully amateurish drek. Which is right up Charlie Sykes's alley.

It's abundantly clear who's pushing the dishonesty around here.

* a.k.a. the Fairness Doctrine.

** He also gave $500 to Shirley Abrahamson, which anybody who witnessed his fingerpointing mini-tirade toward the Chief Justice at last week's open administrative hearing might imagine he regrets.

Three more contributions totaling $650 were dispensed throughout 1997 and 1998 to former Republican Governor Tommy Thompson. Thompson appointed Prosser to the Supreme Court in late 1998.

The source for these figures is the same one as Sykes's "good catch."

Secret of how Charlie Sykes stays so honest

It's paid GOP hacks in spurious "news service" clothing:

Charlie Sykes is an unabashed fan of Media Trackers.

We noticed, a long time ago.

"They'll keep all of us in the media honest." — Charlie Sykes

rofl

Charles Franklin, a political scientist at UW-Madison, said everyone at least knows where these groups are coming from.

He's dreaming, if he believes that. But hopefully they will, soon enough.

Furthermore, news stories indicate that

the [Wisconsin Judicial] Commission presently may have requests to investigate possible misconduct by one or more justices.

Gee I wonder who that could be *cough* Mike Gableman *cough*.

I don't know Mr. Dawson but I took his media law course at Marquette University Law School. He was excellent, as was his course and his method of pedagogy. I remember telling him about a Ninth Circuit case that he'd never heard of in which Evel Knievel and his wife sued ESPN for calling the daredevil motorcyclist a "pimp." The Court of Appeals threw out the Knievels' complaint because, it determined, the ESPN photo-caption writer meant it as a compliment. Mr. Dawson was still laughing about the case when I mentioned it again months later. He struck me as a pretty straight shooter and a learned attorney, not a partisan at all.*

 * Incidentally this is not the same John Dawson who the idiotic wing-nuts at Media Trackers claimed signed a Recall Scott Walker petition.

Journal-Sentinel editorial board is "appall[ed]"

So the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial board is "appall[ed]" that Wisconsin Dems spox Graeme Zielinski would point out that the fake drumbeat of recall election fraud emanates loudest from the paper's sister broadcasting and cable teevee companies. But it's the truth.

Meanwhile the paper acts as surrogate for a WISGOP fronting, phony news outfit's sleazy rumors and innuendo, and it's "appall[ed]" at GZ?

Who are they trying to kid.

Where's their editorial on professional responsibility?

eta: Proving Zielinski's point, among the guests on Charlie Sykes's TMJ-4 clown show this morning is Media Trackers sleazemonger Brian Sikma.

Full disclosure at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Er, not quite.

"Walker returns $170,000 to business group's PAC," it says here: "Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce says it misunderstood GAB guidance on giving." Did you know that Steven J. Smith, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Journal Communications, Inc., which owns both the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the insufferable dissembler Charlie Sykes, and whose local teevee station plays weekly host to sleazy hacks like Brian Sikma of Media Trackers, is also an officer on the board of directors with the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce? Well, you may have known it but you wouldn't have known by reading the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

And it's not the first time you wouldn't have known it either.

Incidentally MMAC chairman Ulice Payne, Jr. conducted a panel I attended during orientation week at Marquette University Law School which turned out to be devoted exclusively to Payne's glorifying "how much money you will make." Payne, who at the time was a partner at Foley & Lardner, brought along a new associate with the firm and recent graduate of MULS. Payne instructed the young woman to tell the audience what her starting salary was and warned her that if she didn't provide this information then he would. It was a display so unseemly that I had to leave the hall and thence avoid the rest of orientation week.

That's an ostensibly Catholic institution, by the way, so perhaps Payne was emphasizing "how much money you will make" so you can give lots of it to charity. But I doubt it because Payne further emphasized that $10K of the new attorney's compensation was in clothing allowance, and the young associate wasn't exactly dressed in sackcloth (nor was Payne).

This while the State Bar of Wisconsin labors to disabuse the popular perception of attorneys as money-grubbing. Deftly played, Mr. Payne.

Teach those baby lawyers well.

Well whaddya know, Wisconsin election bribery

Good news: GAB not investigating WRTL. Bad news: DA is.

It is clear the Milwaukee County district attorney's office is investigating charges that Wisconsin Right to Life offered rewards for volunteers who signed up sympathetic voters in the recall races. Several people familiar with the investigation said subpoenas were being distributed "like candy." — Daniel Bice

Huh.

These are the election bribery allegations, by the way, that an actual Marquette University professor of law attempted to defend against by quoting the State election bribery statute beginning halfway through it, utterly ignoring the pertinent language proscribing offers and promises.

It's comical, but it's also pretty pathetic.

"Are you trying to get me in trouble?" bellowed James Bopp.

I should bloody well hope so.

Been telling anyone who'd listen that this thing had legs. I think the DA has to charge it and I think it will end up at the State Supreme Court.

But the Speed Queen BBQ ribs case, which Bice also mentions, isn't going anywhere. As attenuated from the grasp of the bribery statute one might argue WRTL's shenanigans were, the BBQ ribs were even more so.

Sad Media Trackers will be sad.

Supra: Why the DA must investigate Wisconsin Right to Life

Recall Walker training session filled to over capacity

According even to the Bradley Foundation front group Wisconsin Reporter. As a matter of fact enthusiasm for the movement to recall Governor Scott Walker is so great it even attracted at least one suspicious interloper from the Bradley Foundation front group Wisconsin Reporter. While her tale is certainly amusing and Dem Party spokesman Zielinski is correct the outfit is generally up to no good, this was a training session for volunteers, not for the press, as evidenced by the two Democratic Party documents that Wisconsin Reporter provides.

One is a schedule of upcoming training events for volunteers, and the other is the WisDems' sign-up form for volunteers. Members of the legitimate press understand the distinction between public meetings and closed training sessions and they would do more in advance of their desire to attend than fill out the online form, which is for volunteers.

Either the Wisconsin Reporter is aware of that protocol and was being cute by trying to gain admission as a volunteer or else the Wisconsin Reporter is not aware of that protocol, in which case they come off as pretty amateurish in this latest stunt to antagonize Graeme Zielinski.

Because that's what this "story" is all about. Apparently the reporter sat and listened to remarks delivered by Kathleen Falk, the former Dane County Executive who is among the leading contenders to challenge Walker in the event of a recall election next year, but didn't see fit to report one single thing Falk said, preferring to gin up a fake controversy brought about by the alleged reporter's own questionable tactics.

If the training session was so well attended that organizers even ran out of printed packets for actual volunteers, it's no surprise that the reporter managed to essentially sneak by, given that the organizers' attention would have been necessarily focused on, well, organizing.

All in all, an entertaining diversion for the usual wing-nuts but apart from the fact that the Recall Walker volunteer enthusiasm exceeded even the organizers' expectation, there's not a lot to see here except as more evidence Wisconsin Reporter is less interested in reporting than trying to make a bigger deal out of its ongoing feud with Zielinski.

Most importantly, any legitimate news outfit that insists on using Wisconsin Reporter — or the MacGyvers or the so-called Media Trackers — as a source needs to be aware that Wisconsin Reporter may be muckracking but without any commensurate commitment to objectivity.