tbo: Tampa Bay Online.
Thursday, Apr 26, 2018
  • Home

Wisconsin’s Walker attacked in episode of agenda-driven journalism, laziness, or both?

You might have heard or read about allegations of a criminal conspiracy involving Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and certain outside groups that supported his successful campaign against opponents seeking his recall in 2012. These claims are not only wrong, partisan, unfounded and nonsensical, they were identified as such and rejected weeks ago by a federal judge who took an altogether dim view of the punitive “John Doe” investigation that produced them.

Indeed, the only thing new about any of the charges is that they were unsealed Thursday — without objection by the plaintiffs who prevailed in Judge Rudolph Randa’s courtroom — and seized upon by media outlets that either didn’t understand that they’d already been refuted, or knew and still published them as though they were fresh and viable. One course suggests laziness bordering on professional malpractice, the other a venomous agenda against one of America’s most successful governors, one widely presumed to be considering a run for the White House in 2016.

Power Line founder John Hinderaker, an attorney with a deep understanding of the situation, presents his eye-popping rebuttal here, but this gritty conclusion comprises the gist of his complaint:

The hysterical accusations against Scott Walker that the Associated Press, the Washington Post and others are now gleefully celebrating are simply the unfounded assertions that the prosecutors made in a failed effort to justify their partisan investigation. They are precisely the allegations that have been resoundingly rejected by the federal judge who has presided over the case and who has found the defendants’ investigation to be a naked violation of the conservative groups’ constitutional rights.

So the reporters who are now trumpeting the discredited prosecutors’ assertions either have no understanding of the case, or they are part of the partisan witch hunt that gave rise to the unconstitutional investigation in the first place.

So, which is it: laziness or agenda-driven opportunism? Does it matter?