Probably not a week goes by when Pressroom doesn’t see or hear complaints about Patrick McIlheran‘s column (and some from Milwaukee Magazine’s own editor!). Usually we leave such criticisms to the very active contributors in the blogosphere, where McIlheran has no shortage of critics.
But his Sunday column in defense of former U.S. Atty. Steven Biskupic even brought us up short. McIlheran decried the investigation that ultimately cleared Biskupic of corruption in prosecuting Georgia Thompson in what turned out to have been a phony bid-rigging scandal — a case “beyond thin” in the words of one of the 7th Circuit appeals court justices who overturned her conviction and freed her hours after the oral arguments on her appeal.
At least McIlheran acknowledged that Biskupic’s target, Thompson, lost her job and spent four months in prison. Still, his dudgeon at what remained an arguably legitimate inquiry into the U.S. attorney’s motives for pursuing the Thompson case is astonishingly disproportionate in light of all that Biskupic suffered — namely, a nice job with a private law firm, where an educated guess says he probably makes at least as much in one year as Wisconsin taxpayers had to pay to reimburse Thompson for her legal fees.
And now, Pressroom Buzz’s regular roundup of recent media news and commentary from all over.
Onward and upward with the digital: The New Yorker hopes to create one flat fee for digital access, regardless of platform, rather than charging separately for Kindle vs. iPad vs. who-knows-what’s-next, Advertising Age reports. But editor Dave Remnick warns Apple not to try censoring his writers, even though the computer maker has been “blocking iPad and iPhone apps that it deems too racy,” as Ad Age notes. Quoting Remnick:
“We’re going to publish what we’re going to publish. If the Pentagon isn’t going to talk me out of a story, then Apple in Cupertino isn’t going to either. If they throw me off, they throw me off.”
Let’s hope so. Ad Age says that “might not be a dilemma in which The New Yorker finds itself — Apple is keeping an eye out for sexual material, not the political content more likely to appear in The New Yorker.” Well, maybe. Language might be another matter though. The New Yorker was once a lot more prim than now, even as it has always published superb journalism. But a recent issue has a story with language that almost certainly would never have seen print in the days of the late great William Shawn. Will Mr. Jobs approve?
Chemical safety: Speaking of The New Yorker, the May 31 issue contains a very even-handed story on the question of deciding what chemicals are so toxic they need to be banned. Readers who have followed the Journal Sentinel‘s extensive coverage of chemical exposure in consumer products, especially its stories on Bisphenol A, may be especially interested. Writer Jerome Groopman doesn’t leave BPA off the hook by any means. But he does point out the continuing shades of gray in the issue.
Print exclusivity: We’ve noted in the past both the Journal Sentinel‘s occasional foray into “print-first” stories (holding back online publication of a big story until paying readers got it in their print editions) and noted The Janesville Gazette‘s similar approach. It may be catching on, if Jim Hopkins‘ recent post on his GannettBlog is any indicator. Also…
“Please save our paper.” That’s the plea from a reader of Gannett’s Stevens Point Journal, also reported at GannettBlog.
Magazine covers for sale? It’s a question that Folio (a publishing-industry publication) blogger Jason Fell raises.
And speaking of ethics… Liberal bloggers are having a field day with Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner‘s attacks on Glenn Beck for pushing financial panic and touting investing in gold — in the service of a big advertiser. But as a commenter pointed out on one of those links, liberal Thom Hartmann, with a much tinier audience than Beck, has been known to do the same.
*
Comment below, or write Pressroom at pressroom@milwaukeemagazine.com.
Follow Pressroom on Facebook or on Twitter.
