Has the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Become Irrelevant?

HAS THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL BECOME IRRELEVANT?

M. SCOTT NIEDERJOHN

he Milwaukee ment success rate Journal Sentinel was determined by Thas a long histo- taking a look at the ry of both informing paper’s candidate and influencing the selection versus the people of Milwaukee actual election and Wisconsin. It is, results. Vote totals without a doubt, and election winners Wisconsin’s largest for the Milwaukee and most influential County races were newspaper. But does determined from the it have the same influ- “blue book” of elec- ence it had in the past? tion results for each Does it continue to year compiled by the dominate public poli- Milwaukee County cy debates or has its Board of Election influence diminished Commissioners. All in step with its state and federal declines in circula- government races tion.? Has the editorial were analyzed using board staff remained true to its independent election data available on the state of 3 roots, or is deference given to one political Wisconsin Elections Board web page. It party over the other? In order to shed light on should be noted that this study only analyzes these considerable issues, the paper’s political the writing and endorsements of the editorial endorsement records are examined, including board and not the Journal Sentinel news staff. It a close look at the Milwaukee County recall is assumed that these are two distinct groups elections of 2002. with the opinions and endorsements provided on the editorial page representing those of the Data and Method eleven-member staff and not necessarily the Political endorsements made by the newsroom, entire paper, or Journal eleven-member Milwaukee Journal Sentinel edi- Communications. torial board staff were obtained from 1998 to Politically Independent? the present.1 General election endorsements are considered in the quantitative analysis. The The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial races analyzed include all state-wide races, staff verbalizes their mission and policy state and federal offices in which citizens of through a document entitled, “Where we stand Milwaukee County participate, and local 2 M. Scott Niederjohn is a fellow of the Wisconsin Policy Milwaukee County elections. The endorse- Research Institute.

Wisconsin Interest 19 at the Journal Sentinel.”4 The first tenet submit- The empirical evidence does not bear this ted in this document is centered upon their out, however. In fact, from 1998 to the present, independence in the spirit of the Journal nearly 76% of the Journal Sentinel endorse- founder Lucius Nieman. The actual statement ments have gone to Democrats. In reality, this reads as follows: “We are independent, ratio is tilted further to the left considering that beholden to no special interest or political one of their Republican endorsements came in party. The roots of this pledge extend far back a race where no Democratic candidate ran,5 into Milwaukee’s history.” Subsequent parts of and the majority of other Republican endorse- this document lend details and specifics to this ments were made in conservative districts in proclamation. A sampling of the way the edi- which the non-Republican had little or no torial board describes their philosophy include chance of winning the seat. To further this the following statements: point, one must consider that the average margin of victory for Journal Sentinel endorsed • We are conservative on fiscal issues. . . Republican candidates is nearly 33%6 , and not • We believe in the American free enterprise one of these endorsed candidates lost their system and minimal government interfer- race. Table 1 shows the percentage of Journal ence. . . Sentinel endorsements by political party and year. These data show that not only does this • We believe that a just society must have paper primarily endorse Democrats, but the compassion for the unfortunate. . . percentage is progressively increasing. In 1998, • We believe diversity unites us all. . . 75% of the partisan races studied yielded Democratic endorsements. In 2000 and 2002 • We believe in a strong national defense this percentage rose to 77%. This year, the few At initial glance, these statements afford partisan races that have been conducted have credibility to the paper’s stated primary mis- all elicited Democratic endorsements. The sion of independence. Aspects of both conserv- statement that this paper’s editorial board is ative and liberal political philosophies are independent and not beholden to a particular prevalent in these sentiments. They also party appears to differ from the empirical evi- appear to be in line with the typical moderate dence. The data suggests that the paper exerts Milwaukee-area voter and newspaper sub- their influence in favor of Democratic candi- scriber. The paper professes to be conservative dates at a greater than three-to-one ratio. on fiscal issues, clearly a mantra of Fiscally Conservative? Republicans. They temper this with a declara- tion to fight for the less fortunate, a traditional- Another section of the Milwaukee Journal ly Democratic stance. The views on national Sentinel editorial policy states, “We are conser- defense and diversity also illustrate this vative on fiscal issues.” They expound upon dichotomy. With these assertions in mind, it this facet of their code by stating, “We believe would be that the expected that power to tax TABLE 1MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL POLITICAL the paper’s 7 must be vig- ENDORSEMENTS BY PARTY AFFILIATION endorsements ilantly would reflect Year % Democrat Endorse % Republican Endorse checked. The this indepen- 1998 75% 25% government dence and be that governs split relatively 2000 77% 23% best is frugal evenly 2002 77% 23% and levies between the taxes reluc- 2003 100% 0% political par- tantly.” The ties. actions of the board,

20 Winter 2004 once again, suggest some deviation between since 1998. These results are used to measure the stated mission of the Journal Sentinel editor- the accuracy of the newspaper’s endorsements. ial page and their actual record. It should be noted that the role of the editorial board at the Journal Sentinel, or any other credi- The data presented in the previous section ble newspaper, is not to simply endorse the raises the first indication that fiscal conser- winner of elections. Newspaper editorial staffs vatism may no longer be at the heart of the are obviously not in the business of forecasting editorial staff’s beliefs. While some Democrats election results, but the real goal is to deliver are undoubtedly money-wise, and some opinions in an effort to influence and guide Republicans free-spending, it seems that the readers on their selection of future government endorsements would be more evenly divided leaders. The Journal Sentinel does this based on between parties if fiscal conservatism was their core beliefs as documented in the afore- truly an overriding concern. mentioned “Where we stand at the Journal A reasonable place to continue the discus- Sentinel” manuscript. Quoting from this docu- sion of fiscal conservatism is via a study of ment, “In passing our opinions on to our read- spending referenda. Since ers, we are carrying out a 1998, the Milwaukee historic mission first Journal Sentinel editorial assumed by the founders board has taken a position of the earliest newspapers on eight school district in our original thirteen spending proposals that colonies, and today recog- have shown up on general To be truly relevant, the nized as a primary func- election ballots. Each of candidates endorsed by tion of a free press.” these referenda sought With this said, the approval from voters to a major newspaper must primary purpose of con- exceed state mandated veying these endorse- revenue caps in K12 edu- have some degree of ments is to influence elec- cation for new construc- tions and, therefore, pub- tion, renovation or a success. lic policy. To be truly rele- litany of other purposes.8 vant, the candidates Likely some of these endorsed by a major requests were warranted, newspaper must have while others may have some degree of success. been excessive. It would Given that the Journal Sentinel is the only be expected that the Journal Sentinel editorial major newspaper in Milwaukee, and the board, with the resources to determine which largest paper in the largest city in Wisconsin, it fall into each category, would make appropri- would be expected that their endorsements ate advisements for their readers.9 In the end, would carry much potency. This hypothesis is however; this board chose to recommend every proven to be correct in the partisan elections single spending measure, while voters struck studied in this paper. Table 2 shows the per- down five of the eight spending referenda. centage of partisan Journal Sentinel endorse- Again, an obvious discrepancy appears ments that actually won their elections for between the assertions of the editorial board 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2003.10 Moreover, in 1998 and the opinions of Milwaukee-area voters. and 2000 all of the candidates endorsed by the Endorsement Accuracy newspaper in partisan elections won their races. This percentage dipped to 92% in 2002, Just how much weight does an endorse- and plummeted further to 50% for the few par- ment by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial tisan elections held in 2003. While the winning board carry today? To answer this question, percentage of candidates endorsed by the we first turn to the results of partisan elections

Wisconsin Interest 21 paper has decreased over time, it continues to once non-partisan elections are introduced a be imposing. To truly understand the impact very different picture is painted. of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in local poli- As a starting point for analyzing the influ- tics, one must explore its influence in local ence the Journal Sentinel has had in non-parti- non-partisan contests. san Milwaukee County races, we begin with a dissection of election results for 2000. Table TABLE 2MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL 3 shows that in 2000 there were elections for PARTISAN POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS Milwaukee County Executive and twelve WON BY YEAR Milwaukee County Board of Supervisor positions. In the County Executive race, the Year % of Partisan Endorsements Won paper endorsed the now disgraced F. 1998 100% Thomas Ament, who won handily. 2000 100% Moreover, the candidates that the newspaper endorsed in eleven of the twelve super- 2002 92% visor races were also successful. The only 2003 50% loss being in the 13th district where Willie Johnson beat the Journal Sentinel’s pick, Lennie Mosely. 2002 – A Changing Political Environment The proficiency of Journal Sentinel endorse- At first glance the percentage of candidates ments in the 2000 county ballots provides a endorsed by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that fascinating foil to their dismal record in the won their respective races continued to be 2002 races. The well-documented Milwaukee strong in 2002. While down from previous County pension scandal led to a flurry of elec- years, a 92 percent win ratio in partisan election activity throughout the year. The first tions is impressive and suggests that the paper recall election was held in April of 2002 to continued to wield great influence. However, replace the newspaper’s advocated candidate for Milwaukee TABLE 3 2000 MILWAUKEE COUNTY ELECTIONS County Executive Office Endorsed Candidate Journal Sentinel Candidate Won? from the 2000 election, F. County Executive Ament YES Thomas Ament. County Board White YES In this election, County Board Davis, Sr. YES the paper chose to endorse Jim County Board Podell YES Ryan, who was County Board Holloway YES subsequently County Board Mayo YES defeated by then Republican state County Board Zielinski YES assemblyman County Board Mosley NO Scott Walker. As can be seen in County Board Launstein YES Table 4, this was County Board Weishan YES just the begin- County Board Arciszewski YES ning of the paper’s atrophy. County Board Ryan YES Following the County Board Lutzka YES election for Milwaukee County

22 Winter 2004 Executive, a whirlwind of County Board of Milwaukee County recall elections was simply Supervisor recall elections were held. The can- an anomaly, the special election held in April didate endorsed by the newspaper turned out 2003 to replace Jeff Plale in the 21st state to be the loser in four of these five recalls. It is assembly district on the south side of also interesting to note that the paper chose to Milwaukee is a good place to start. The evi- endorse all three of the original supervisors dence presented in an earlier section of this responsible for the pension scandal that sur- article documents that this race is typical of vived the primary and participated in the gen- one in which the paper’s endorsed candidate eral election. The only race that the paper did has almost always won in the past. get right, in the aftermath of the pension scan- The race for the 21st assembly seat was dal fallout, was the endorsement of Paul waged between Democrat Al Foeckler and Cersarz. Even in this race it would be a stretch Republican Mark Honadel. The district had to suggest that their nomination carried much been under Democratic representation for the influence, considering the opposition candi- last seventy-five years and was considered a date, Kathleen Arciszewski, had been badly Democratic stronghold. The key issue in this damaged by the pension scandal and lost by election was a tax freeze plan, floated by state over 60 percent. assembly Republicans, in which property taxes would be TABLE 4 2002 MILWAUKEE COUNTY ELECTIONS locked in order Office Endorsed Candidate Journal Sentinel Candidate Won? to protect local County Executive Ryan NO taxpayers. Honadel voiced County Board Ordinans NO support for the County Board Goff NO plan while County Board McGuigan NO Foeckler opposed it. County Board Cesarz YES Per their County Board Ryan NO endorsement history, the Journal Sentinel chose to back the Democrat in this race. Interestingly, the Following the Milwaukee County recall paper made no mention of the key issue in the elections of 2002, the year continued to be chal- contest — the property tax freeze — in their lenging for the Journal Sentinel. While eventual- endorsement column. In a continuation of the ly getting the race for Wisconsin governor cor- trend that began in the 2002 Milwaukee rect, by endorsing Jim Doyle, the newspaper’s County recall elections, the Journal Sentinel’s preferred candidate, Tom Barrett, did not sur- candidate was trounced. In an election with a vive the Democratic primary. The results of the mere ten thousand votes cast, Honadel won elections documented here call into question with over 63 percent of the total vote. In the the amount of influence the Milwaukee Journal recent past, the endorsement of the paper in a Sentinel retains in Milwaukee politics today. local election such as this would have been the The limited evidence from 2003 may provide key to victory; of late, it appears to be more of help in determining whether 2002 was an out- an encumbrance. lier, or the beginning of a long-term trend. Conclusion The Foeckler vs. Honadel Case Study There is evidence that the power base in To decipher whether the Journal Sentinel’s Milwaukee may be shifting. Once a powerful poor endorsement record in the 2002 player in local-area politics, the current

Wisconsin Interest 23 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board 4. See “Where we stand at the Journal Sentinel” at: appears to have lost some influence. Beginning www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/editpolicy.asp.ß with the 2002 Milwaukee County recall elec- 5. Fall 2002 election for 14th district state assembly seat. tions and continuing into 2003, the newspa- Leah Vukmir, the Republican was endorsed. Her opponent was a Libertarian with no credibility. The per’s record of endorsements in local elections Journal Sentinel actually endorsed a different candi- has become abysmal. Why has the paper fallen date in the primary election. so far, so fast? While the newspaper circulation 6. Margin of victory is calculated by taking the winning has swooned in recent years, with daily circu- candidates total vote percentage less the second place lation falling almost eleven percent, and finishers total vote percentage. Sunday circulation down five percent since 11 7. There were no partisan elections, in the categories 1998, this explanation seems a bit weak. considered, in 1999 or 2001. Recent election data suggests that the Journal 8. Approval of school district referenda obligates the Sentinel’s divergence from their stated mission, State of Wisconsin to pay for two thirds of the build- in particular their digression from the self-pro- ing project cost. claimed ideals of independence and fiscal con- 9. In fact, the editorial board makes this point them- servatism, is a more likely cause. It appears of selves in the “Where we stand at the Journal Sentinel” late that readers have been less inclined to take document when they write, “We recognize that edi- the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s suggestions to tors and editorial writers are neither wiser nor more moral than other citizens. But editorial writers are in the polls as they have in the past. a better position than most people to dedicate time to Notes digging out the facts and evaluating them before issu- ing judgements.” 1. These endorsements were provided by a Milwaukee 10. There were no partisan elections, in the categories Journal Sentinel editorial department staff member. considered, in 1999 or 2001. These were corroborated using www.jsonline.com. 11. Data obtained from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 2. City of Milwaukee elections are not considered marketing department. Daily circulation fell from because of their non-partisan nature, small sample 290,565 in 1998 to 257,599 in 2003. Sunday circulation size and frequency with an unopposed candidate. fell from 456,354 in 1998 to 434,668 in 2003. 3. See: http://elections.state.wi.us/

24 Winter 2004