In a post where she is apparently implying that the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal is liberal, she complains that they have buried a line deep within an article that reads:
Gov. Jim Doyle returned part of his salary in his first four years in office, but this year started accepting the full $137,092, said Doyle spokesman Matt Canter.
In this case deep to her is about halfway.
But the title of her post is "What would the media do if Scott Walker did this?" Her answer is:
Answer: There would be big stories about it.
Oh, really now. Let's take a look, shall we? We'll start with this article. Notice the third from last paragraph:
Walker said the proposed increase for the county executive's office was in recognition there could be a different county executive after next spring's election. Walker wanted to restore full funding for a vacant position, as well as add $60,000 - the sum he annually returns to the county from his $130,000 pay - in case he doesn't win re-election, he said.
And there is this article, which is even more telling. The part that is of interest is about halfway down again, just as in the article on Doyle:
Walker also said if he decides to run for another term next year, he'll reconsider whether he wants to continue to return part of his salary. He has given back $60,000 a year since his election in 2002.
"In the future, I definitely would have to look at it," Walker said. "Six years - that's a lot of money to give back. That's not chicken feed anymore."
Today' lesson is that McBride really does teach journalism--yellow journalism.
OK. Forget the yellow journalism charges. Forget the questioning of whether she is qualified or capable of teaching journalism. I can't hold back any longer on this issue.ReplyDelete
Why doesn't she fix the aspect ratio on her picture? I am referring to the top left picture on her blog's header.
It makes her face look much wider than I'm sure it is. Insert chipmunk or Couric reference here. This is her best head shot? It's like one of those cheesy "picture of the victim" where the news web site posts some odd derived cropping of a photo of a photo held up at a news conference, and it's all twisted and blurry. What, no one at CNN knows how to use PhotoShop to fix that?
I dug into the HTML. The image file is named "thisonejessica.jpg". Someone took her non-square head shot, then stretched it to make it 199 x 199 pixels.
The very file name speaks volumes to my IT-addled mind. Someone is leading her by the hand; she can't figure out attachments to emails, ftp uploads, or some corner of Blogger's upload and config process. "This one, Jessica. Click there. No, there's not a button that says 'here'. Click 'upload'. On the browser. No, not that other window. On your web."
If we offered to help her, would she accept?
She says she doesn't read Whallah!, but now she's changed the look of her post and did away with the famous thisone photo.ReplyDelete
I know, I know. I think I had an effect. Whallah! It's like magic! I thought it, and it happened! But sometimes, appeals to vanity work that way.ReplyDelete
I'm not going to comment on the new pic. It would be too ad hominem. I'd had my hair ridiculed by blog commenters.
She should include pictures of her and her husband's first date. Maybe write about it as sort of an advice column about true romance and integrity.ReplyDelete