Murdoch's WSJ Still Won't Tell Us What Wisconsin Democrats “Said”

Written by Eric Boehlert

Published

This is getting to be a bit of a problem for the Wall Street Journal newsroom.

On Monday, the Journal splashed a breaking-news dispatch from Wisconsin on the front page:

Democrats to End Union Standoff

The papers announced that Democratic legislators who had fled to Illinois in order to thwart Gov. Scott Walker's anti-union agenda would end their “game of political chicken” and return home to the Badger State.

Big news, indeed.

But as we noted, while the Journal exclusive kept referring to what Wisconsin Democrats had “said,” the article failed to include a single direct quote from any of them confirming the Journal story about them returning home. Instead, the Journal paraphrased the pols throughout the article to make the point, which seemed odd for such a big story.

Well, today Rupert Murdoch's Journal returns with a follow-up:

In Wisconsin, Both Sides Dig In

Hmm, if Democrats were set to “end union standoff,” as the Journal reported on Monday, why would both sides be digging in for Tuesday's report? In other words, what happened to Monday's Journal scoop?

Here, the paper tried to explain [emphasis added]:

On Sunday, Mr. Miller told The Wall Street Journal that Senate Democrats were planning to return to allow a vote, without providing a timeline. On Monday morning, he sent the governor and Mr. Fitzgerald an open letter offering to meet in person “near the Wisconsin-Illinois border to formally resume serious discussions as soon as possible.” It wasn't clear whether Mr. Miller had changed his mind about Democrats returning.

More paraphrasing.

According to the Journal, Democrat Miller “told” the paper that Democrats were planning to return to Wisconsin. Yet for the second day in a row, the Journal fails to produce a direct quote from Miller to confirm that account.

As I mentioned yesterday, I have no idea whether the Journal's story from Monday will eventually pan out. But these are the kinds of problems that arise when reporters interpret for readers what politicians have “said,” rather than simply quoting them directly.