My e-mail to reporter of biased article on last night Barrett-Walker debate

[WI_DEM]

The headline looked interesting--Wisconsin recall: Did Tom Barrett close gap with Scott Walker in debate?

But the article was, I thought, one sided. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2012/0601/Wisconsin-recall-Did-Tom-Barrett-close-gap-with-Scott-Walker-in-debate

Here is my e-mail to the reporter:

I just read your article on the Wisconsin recall debate last night and am appalled at how biased it was. You quote three Walker supporters and could not find a single Barrett supporter? Did you even try? You quote a political scientist who said that ‘Barrett’s aggressive tone’ could hurt him. What about Walker’s evasive tone—in not answering any questions. You mention Walker has a seven point lead in the Marquette poll without mentioning that two other polls out yesterday show a close race. Of course this is nothing new. The media is usually on the side of the corporate interests but I have to say you didn’t even try to hide your bias.

[spooky3]

1. good job (n/t)

[freshwest]

2. +1

[DallasNE]

3. Two Points

The sub-head said "polls" which would make one think it was an average of polls, which it was not.

The other point was the man who said that Wisconsin had become "a laughing stock" then concluded that it was Democrats and people like Barrett that were the cause so he was voting for Walker. What planet did this guy live on that thinks the current image of Wisconsin has been caused by Barrett and the Democrats?

Lastly, the political scientist that said "Barrett's aggressive tone" worked at Marquette -- the same place that had the outliner 7% poll they quoted as "polls". The writer seemed to reflect Marquette interests as much as Walker interests. Are they tied at the lip?

[Dustlawyer]

4. Clear case of a purchased story. How much did the Editor and the writer sell out for?