Assorted blot posts and comments.

The issue was McIlheran’s citing a report that suggests the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) doesn't pose the sort of health hazard that has been claimed by extensive Journal Sentinel reporting. In his comment  to the post, Stanley asserted that the scientists who gave the chemical the all-clear “all have financial ties to the plastics industry - just as we have found over and over again, regarding this $7 billion product: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/34405049.html.”

Whatever you think about BPA, the resulting donnybrook proved one of those exceptional occasions when reading the comments at the JS didn’t leave you feeling like your IQ had just been lowered by 25 points purely by osmosis. Even the writer McIlheran cited, Jon Entine of George Mason University, weighed in, challenging Stanley’s assertion. And over at his own Illusory Tenant, blogger/attorney Tom Foley offered a riveting play-by-play...

As entertaining as it all is, though, there’s a deeper question that leaves me a bit up in the air. On the one hand, the Journal Sentinel has dug deeply into this topic and produced some compelling and award-winning journalism. The newspaper has in particular drilled down into the question of whether conflicts of interest have influenced the largely benign treatment BPA has received at the hands of federal regulators over the years. Consumer Reports, for one, is equally convinced of the chemical’s risk - and I happen to consider it a credible publication. (And yes, Entine and his colleagues have criticized CR as well as the JS.)

But I also happen to be a chronic skeptic. Apparent financial interests are always worthy of scrutiny, but sometimes they lead down a rabbit hole (ask Georgia Thompson).  The case against BPA at this point doesn’t seem to be as airtight as, say, the case against cigarettes. And it is reasonable to ask (as a commenter has pointed out on the McIlheran piece) whether the newspaper has gotten so invested in its take on the subject that it might be skewing the story, however inadvertently.

Understand clearly: Forced to take a stand, at this moment Pressroom Buzz is inclined to side with Stanley and the Journal Sentinel. But at this point, I haven’t read the science myself. So I’m taking my position with caution and an admission that I - and they - might be wrong...

More on Financial Martial Law: Those advancing the theory that Gov. Scott Walker - despite his denials - does want legislation that would give the state sweeping power to step in and take over fiscally struggling local governments aren’t letting up. Forbes.com blogger Rick Ungar has posted two more entries on the subject, going into great depth. Another blogger trying to advance the story is Scott Wittkopf, who published three posts on the subject and followed up with a lengthy article last Friday on the website of the Madison weekly Isthmus.

Critics of the purported proposal - which, remember, Walker insists doesn’t even exist - contend it is like one passed earlier this year in Michigan and that now has led to the imposition of an outside financial reviewer on the poor, mostly black community of Benton Harbor.

As Pressroom Buzz reported last week, rumors of the legislation have their roots in part in a Greater Milwaukee Committee initiative that calls for making it possible to subject Milwaukee County to a “financial stress test” in order to help dramatize the need for fiscal reforms.

The question is whether or not people are reading more into that initiative than is there. The GMC has strenuously denied claims that its effort, launched under the banner of “Make it Your Milwaukee County,” had any agenda like that of the Michigan “Financial Martial Law” to which it is being compared.

(In our report last week, we also expressed the opinion that the “Make it Your Milwaukee County” website’s design obscured its ties to the GMC. The GMC takes exception to that opinion, and it is true that a diligent viewer of the site can find a “Media Kit” on it that makes the GMC relationship clear.)

Last week’s post mentioned in passing an op-ed about the project whose co-authors included Wallace White. After it was published we heard from White, who agreed to the publication of his comments:

I signed on to the My Milwaukee County Initiative because it was a statement that supported change in County Government, which I believe almost everyone in Milwaukee County felt was needed.  I also believe that support for that change should be both inclusive and diverse since County Government affects all of us who live or work here.

The sponsors of the Initiative included a broad base of government officials, businesses, individuals, community organizations, and religious groups who had met with GMC staff and consultants over several months.  Initiative concerns were broadly stated without specificity as to implementation goals or policy positions.  It was developed in part as a blueprint for whoever the incoming County Executive would be.  Something he or she could use (or not) to jump start the administration in urgent policy areas.

There was never any discussion regarding the use of local government fiscal stress tests as you state is currently being considered by Governor Walker or his administration.  The Initiative states that the fiscal stress tests would be used to help local governments maintain fiscal health, period.  I would never support a pre-emptive stress test approach that allows State government to unilaterally intervene in local government.  For example, the recent intervention by the state appointed financial manager in Benton Harbor, Michigan where he removed local elected officials from office is an outrageous attack on the American democratic system of government and a move toward dictatorship.  We must be careful to always protect the basic tenets of our way of governing.

So why take up so much space in Pressroom Buzz? The fact is, whatever is or isn’t going on is surely a story. But with so many competing theories, assertions, and denials, just what the full story is still is not yet clear. And seeing it sorted out in such a public way shines a spotlight on our evolving media landscape.

* 

But the single most compelling piece of media commentary in recent days didn't come from a blogger, left or right. And it didn’t come from some journalism academic in Cambridge, New York or Evanston.

Instead, it came from a Wisconsin entertainment writer who drew the short straw and had to go cover a routine Walker photo-op – the one at the factory out in the western part of the state that Dan Bice wrote about the other day.

The experience left Rob Hansen of the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram dispirited about his profession and our larger politico-media culture. The whole thing is worth reading, but here’s the money quote:

More than anything, the day’s experiences stirred up questions that I’ve had for some time. When exactly did we as a country start accepting euphemisms, analogies and catch phrases in place of straight facts? When did journalists, of all people, quit asking real questions? Why are all these speeches held for the press only? And more importantly, how do we fix it?

Hansen doesn’t have an answer. Nor do I. But do go read the whole thing. Because it helps make clear why the question is so important.

*

Comment below, or write Pressroom at pressroom@milwaukeemagazine.com.

Follow Pressroom on Facebook or on Twitter.