Gray Matter

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Eye of the Beholder

When it comes to art, we’re all experts. To paraphrase a wise Supreme Court justice, good art is difficult to define but we know it when we see it.

Here in Milwaukee, where we have an inferiority complex about so many things, nothing seems to incite a contentious debate more than the subject of public art.

The most recent example of the incendiary nature of this topic is, of course, the Bronze Fonz. For those of you who don’t remember or weren’t paying attention, Visit Milwaukee, the quasi-public entity formally known as the Greater Milwaukee Convention and Visitors Bureau, has raised private funds to commission a life-sized sculpture of the Arthur Fonzarelli character from the Happy Days television show to be placed along the city’s Riverwalk.

This ignited a firestorm of controversy throughout the Milwaukee art community. Some arts advocates were outraged that the project circumvented the formal approval process for public art in support of something politely described as schlock.

Dave Fantle, the Visit Milwaukee impresario behind this undertaking, brushed aside these concerns and insisted that the intent of the sculpture was not to create art but to add an attraction that would draw tourists and other visitors who fondly remember the iconic Fonzie and might want to have their picture taken next to it.

My unremarkable reaction to this debate, apparently consistent with my Libran nature, was to sympathize with both sides. What struck me as odd about the proposed sculpture was that it seemed to conflict with Visit Milwaukee’s oft-stated commitment to convince the world that our city had evolved beyond its “Laverne and Shirley” image.

Both Fantle and Dean Amhaus, his colleague at Spirit of Milwaukee, another organization dedicated to promoting the city’s image, stressed upon me this goal when I first met them two or three years ago.

I like Dave and Dean but I never felt that the image associated with the television show was entirely negative. If, however, you want to disassociate the city from its past, then it is best not to refer to it at all. I was amazed that at nearly every ribbon cutting or news conference announcing some forward looking endeavor, some official would proudly declare that the event proved that Milwaukee “had moved beyond its Laverne and Shirley image.” So that quote would invariably show up in the media coverage serving to keep the connection alive.

I love nostalgia and it’s only a television comedy which, you gotta remember, almost always have goofball characters who don’t necessarily represent the essence of the city the show is set in. Do Joey of Friends or George, Elaine or Kramer of Seinfeld make you think that all New Yorkers are shallow and stupid? Or Horshack of Welcome Back, Kotter? Or Ralph and Norton of The Honeymooners? Come on!

Fantle’s reaction is that the Fonz represents cool while Laverne and Shirley and their buddies Lennie and Squiggy are square and lame. Whatever.

Milwaukee, of course, has been through debates about public art before. Remember the Blue Shirt imbroglio. Then there’s that organic, post industrial Stratiformis installation in the Third Ward that Tom Bamberger dislikes so much (see his January, 2007 Milwaukee Magazine article entitled "Brown Smudge" (not online). That’s the thing about art; and politics for that matter. We all are entitled to our own opinions.

I would like to point out that these debates are not unique to Milwaukee. A federal office building in New York installed a Richard Serra sculpture called Tilted Arc in front that generated an uproar back in the early 1980s. Many workers in the building detested the rusty wall that they considered ugly and an obstruction to their ability to walk across the courtyard. It was removed.

And then there’s the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC that has grown to be so revered. When the design was first announced it generated so much outrage that the planners commissioned an additional, more representational sculpture of three politically correct soldiers, one black, one white and one Hispanic. Yale University Architecture Student Maya Lin designed the wall while experienced and talented Frederick Hart was responsible for the three men sculpture.

C'est la vie, c'est la guerre.

So why write about this now, months after the Fonz was so passionately debated? Well I visited Mike Brenner’s Hotcakes Gallery over the weekend. Mike was probably the most outspoken critic of the Fonz sculpture and pledged to close his gallery if it was approved. Mike told me that he is, in fact, closing Hotcakes next month.

This was Gallery Night weekend, after all, and the real message I’d like to leave you with is that art is alive and well here in Milwaukee. Any discussion of local art must begin with the Milwaukee Art Museum, not just for the inspirational addition designed by acclaimed architect Santiago Calatrava but the exhibitions, temporary and permanent, are truly first-class.

But the city is also rich in smaller collections and rotating exhibits at other museums, galleries and schools. My favorites include Peltz Gallery where arts doyenne Cissie Peltz organizes the most wonderful shows. The current one focuses on Wisconsin artist Warrington Colescott’s delightful paintings and prints many of which touch on images associated with New Orleans.

The David Barnett Gallery can also be counted on for fantastic stuff. His current collection features the work of Milwaukee native Reginald K. Gee. Gee’s tribute to Martin Luther King, exhibited by the Smithsonian Institution in 1999, alone is worth a visit but both shows are extraordinary for the depth and engaging nature of the work.

By the way, Milwaukee's DeLind Gallery has an exclusive relationship with the estate of Frederick Hart and usually has spectacular pieces of his on display.

So the weather’s getting nice and everyone is looking for an excuse to get out of the house on the weekend or go somewhere during the lunch hour. So what do you say? Take in some of the wonderful art in our backyard. You’ll feel better for it.

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

In Praise of Mike Gousha

We are a polarized society on so many things but there is at least one thing that people of all political stripes can agree on; local television news is a vast wasteland.

Chicago attorney Newton Minow used that term in reference to all of television way back during the Kennedy administration when he served as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

Much has changed in the nearly half century since Minow chastised the broadcasters who were responsible for the thin gruel then beamed into America’s living rooms.

We’ve seen highs and lows in most everything including network news, children’s programming, prime time comedy, drama, game shows, so-called reality shows, etc., etc. But when it comes to local news, broadcast television has been a remarkable disappointment, failing to live up to its potential to contribute to an informed, involved population so overwhelmingly and completely that there is really no argument.

Let’s look at the evidence…

Almost every day the average local news broadcast proves worthy of the phrase that critics use to demean and dismiss the field; “If it bleeds, it leads.” Correspondents and camera crews stand ready to respond anytime a local resident falls victim to violence leading to the obligatory live standup with the breathless reporter on the scene in front of the obligatory yellow police tape.

That is, unless a weather event threatens to affect rush hour traffic, in which case the usually attractive “talent” (at least that’s how industry professionals refer to the folks who go in front of the camera) get to stand bundled up against the elements, often with affected traffic visible behind them.

But let’s face it, coverage of crime and potentially serious weather events are dwarfed by the true raison d’etre of local television news here in Milwaukee and that’s keeping track of the Green Bay Packers.

It’s probably unfair to refer to the extensive coverage of Brett Favre to describe this phenomenon since there is something truly extraordinary about his relationship with Wisconsin. The former Packer quarterback, and it pains even me to refer to him in the past tense, is like royalty and arguably many, probably most, of the viewing population in the Milwaukee media market feel a deep, personal connection with Favre that is something like family.

“All Brett, All the Time” came to an apocalyptic crescendo recently when Favre announced that he would indeed retire. It happened to come on the day that cycling superstar and cancer advocate Lance Armstrong was traveling across Wisconsin with Gov. Doyle to support the proposed legislation to ban smoking in all workplaces including bars.

Before Favre’s statement was released, inviting Armstrong seemed to be a stroke of brilliance. The biking icon’s popularity is quite high and his commitment to fighting cancer and promoting health issues is sincere and, well, strong. Not only were his personal appearances guaranteed to attract press attention but his appeal to male sports fans would draw the attention of a demographic not always sympathetic to health promotion issues.

But once news of Favre’s retirement hit the wires, all bets were off. It would take an event of biblical proportions to cut into Brett’s domination of local news. Gov. Doyle opened the Milwaukee-area news conference by acknowledging the great loss felt across all of Wisconsin before segueing into his remarks. Armstrong gave a passionate and substantive speech referring to the scourge of cancer, the danger of second hand smoke and the importance of ensuring that all workers be protected from toxic air on the job.

It was all for naught. The first question, proffered by WTMJ/Channel 4’s Charles Benson, asked Armstrong to provide a personal description of what Brett Favre must be going through on the day of his retirement. The audience of smoking ban supporters groaned but they shouldn’t have been surprised.

Another example of the awfulness of local news is what passes for investigative journalism. WTMJ’s John Mercure has developed a reputation as the local station’s version of NBC Dateline’s Chris Hansen in his attempts to track down local sexual predators. This subject is vitally important and worth examining, but the undercover technique is prurient and exploitative.

Not exploitative of the potential predator, those sleazebags get what they deserve, but exploitative of the audience which is feed this crap during sweeps in order to boast ratings and station ratings. Why don't they set up cameras on the Florida beach and invite college coeds to get on television by flashing their breasts thereby documenting the disturbing morality of our young people? Hey, think of the ratings!

Courtny Gerrish’s “Dirty Dining” series on WTMJ also deserves mention. Aren’t you glad that our broadcast crusaders are using their vast resources to track down the inspection records of local restaurants and then pointing their cameras at kitchen help and treating them like perps? I guess it’s better than confronting police spouses to ask them how it feels to be newly widowed before they were notified by authorities. Whoops!

Which brings me to the story of Mike Gousha who retired from WTMJ in 2006 following a long career as the station’s highly respected lead anchor. Gousha was extremely diplomatic about his reasons for dissolving his relationship with Channel 4, saying that after 25 years he was ready to do something new. However, he also alluded to the troubling direction that television news was taking and seemed to withdraw to the ivory tower of academia when he accepted a position at Marquette.

But Gousha has returned to the air with, you might say, a vengeance. Gousha has teamed up with former competitor WISN/Channel 12, to produce the refreshingly thoughtful, inofrmative and entertaining Sunday morning public affairs news magazine called Upfront with Mike Gousha.

Just this past week Gousha took on the subject of the Iraq War, always an important and newsworthy subject but especially topical following the Congressional testimony of Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Gousha’s local angle was to interview Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, one of the most outspoken critics of the war and Brigadier General Donald Dunbar who heads Wisconsin’s National Guard.

Balanced, substantive and compelling. Bravo, Mike, bravo.

Meanwhile, over on WTMJ on Sunday mornings we continue to be treated to the most dreadful excuse of a public affairs program imaginable. Sunday Insight with Charlie Sykes is a platform for the conservative radio talk show host to enhance his brand by hoisting the right’s talking points up the flagpole. Sen. Barack Obama’s preacher uses hateful language! Shocking! Wisconsin voters defeat Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler and send the message that they don’t want activist judges. Right on!

It’s insulting to the intelligence of his viewers but I must admit that I am an admirer. Sykes is good at what he does. He surrounds himself with conservative voices to support what he says and token liberal toadies who serve as a foil to emphasize the correctness of his opinions. If there's anyone doing this successfully on the left, I don't know about it. (Dittoheads might say that's what Terri Gross does on NPR but come on!)

So there you have it. All hail Mike Gousha and WTMJ-TV News Director Lori Waldron for taking the huge step of committing to do real news. Waldron is the first African American to head a local news operation and don’t we all pray that the time will come soon when it is no longer necessary to point out such an accomplishment (maybe following the November election?).

(6) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, April 11, 2008

Newsflash: Journal Sentinel Capable of Good Journalism

When the Pulitzer Prizes were announced on Monday and it was revealed that Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Dave Umhoefer had won the Big Enchilada for local reporting, I was happy for Umhoefer and the rest of the Journal Sentinel staff who worked on this investigation of yet another excessive manipulation of the county pension system to grossly benefit county retirees.

I have tremendous respect for the Pulitzer Prize and I know that this award should not be taken lightly. If you don’t remember this story from last July, it’s worth a read. It’s well-researched and well-written. The bottom line is that county leaders rigged the system to allow certain workers to pay for the privilege of extending their length of service in order to qualify for substantially greater annual benefits.

More than 350 workers paid nearly $3 million in order to convert past summer jobs, internships and other seasonal work, normally ineligible to count towards pension benefits, in order to qualify for additional benefits totalling more than $50 million, in violation of federal tax code and county ordinances.

As a result of the story, the county turned itself into the IRS in order to avoid a potential audit.

This was a new wrinkle on the pension scandal that had first been broken by Bruce Murphy and posted on the milwaukeeworld.com web site back in 2001. When Murphy called attention to how the county had implemented new and extraordinarily generous benefits for thousands of county workers, it was seen as a black eye for the Journal Sentinel which not only had missed the story but apparently hadn’t even been sending reporters to cover the meetings where the “pension sweeteners” were discussed.

Some critics, including Michael Horne who now writes for milwaukeeworld.com, fault the Journal Sentinel for not crediting Murphy and his original story with leading to this Pulitzer. Horne scoffs that JS editor Marty Kaiser claims this is the type of reporting that only a newspaper can do. Kaiser’s gratuitous boast appears disingenuous, if not totally dishonest, given how Murphy broke his story in 2001 writing for a web site.

The competition between old-fashioned newspapers, printed on paper and distributed to front doors and driveways, and their online brethren, capable of being updated 24/7 is becoming increasingly moot.

All providers of news need to realize that the internet represents the future. Newspapers, magazines, cable and broadcast television, etc. are simply content producers and consumers want to receive that product in the most convenient version possible.

As traditional circulation drops, newspapers are struggling to figure out how to generate revenue online, not such an easy proposition, given that most people expect access to web sites to be free. Plus, Craigslist and other online classified sites have gutted one of the greatest sources of revenue for newspapers.

This is not unique to the news industry, of course. The music business has been radically transformed by downloading and the iPod and that’s only one example. All news organizations are facing this challenge and resorting to online ads isn’t necessarily the answer.

But that’s an issue for another day. As for whether this Pulitzer was earned by the Journal Sentinel, this story examines how the buyout provision was enacted in the early 1990s and predates the 2001 scandal by about ten years.

JS insiders, including Umhoefer, credit Murphy’s scoop with leading the paper to beef up its coverage of the county to make sure it wasn’t beaten to the punch so badly again but the paper never seems to have acknowledged this in print.

Umhoefer says that he began looking into the buyback provision when he noticed that former Parks Director Susan Baldwin was receiving a higher pension payout than she deserved for her length of service. It turned out that she had paid a onetime amount of $683 to qualify for an additional annual benefit of $9000 (or 22 percent). Not a bad return, eh?

The Journal Sentinel management has been engaged in a campaign for a Pulitzer for a number of years. The paper has focused considerable resources on investigations that could be viewed as Pulitzer-worthy.

Frankly, I thought Meg Kissinger’s Special Report: Abandoning Our Mentally Ill in 2006 seemed to me to be Worthy of The Prize.

In fact, also in 2006, John Fauber and John Diedrich collaborated on a series called Uncounted: Surviving Gunshots, Paying the Price that I thought also might bring home the medal and I also liked Alan Borsuk and Sarah Carr’s four-part series on MPS high schools

Alas, 2007 brought no Pulitzer.

So let’s give credit where credit is due; kudos to Umhoefer and his team for their excellent work on this story. And a virtual high five to Kissinger, Fauber, Dietrich, Borsuk, Carr and others at the Journal Sentinel for the good work they do.

But these special projects call attention to the high standards by which newspapers should be judged and make the shortcomings of the Journal Sentinel’s daily product so obvious. The paper’s front section usually features condensed versions of wire stories including reprints from the Washington Post or New York Times. The metro and business sections feature staff-produced articles but the small news hole suggests that reporters know they might as well keep their stories short and to the point.

The paper’s editorial page is well-written and accounts for the perception that the Journal Sentinel is dominated by liberals. This is comical since the news coverage often suggests exactly the opposite.

It is disappointing that much of space on the op-ed page is devoted to writers from elsewhere or “average Joe” community columnists, rather than professional, local writers.

Of course, the sports pages are first rate. The Journal Sentinel is the place to go for Packers, Brewers and Bucks coverage. And let’s face it; there are a lot of folks who read nothing else.

I’ll conclude with one last thing about the Pulitzer. The Milwaukee Press Club presents annual awards for outstanding journalism throughout Wisconsin. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has been conspicuously absent from these awards during the last few years. Longtime members of the MPC believe that the paper’s Powers That Be instructed its staff to concentrate on the national awards.

This year, however, Marilyn Krause, an assistant managing editor of the JS is the president of the MPC so it will be interesting to see whether the paper decided to participate in this year’s awards which will be presented later this month.

Stay tuned.

(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, April 03, 2008

We Must Cultivate Our Gardens

“Tawdry and Despicable” --- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

A “Tragedy” --- Gov. Doyle

“Unfit to be a judge or hold any public office --- Bill Lueders

Others have reflected on the awful campaign leading to the defeat of Justice Louis Butler by Burnett County Circuit Court Judge Michael Gableman in Tuesday’s election.

My reaction was disappointment and anger. Justice Butler, a highly-respected, ethical and accomplished jurist was taken out by a truly mean-spirited, vicious and cynical campaign.

But let’s stop putting the blame on how shady, anonymous third party groups manipulated the process.

For one thing, the Gableman campaign itself was responsible for the most reprehensible ad. It was the one that flashed Butler’s picture on the screen next to the face of a child molester who Butler represented in his role as a public defender more than twenty years ago.

Leaving aside the racist implications that led to comparisons with the Willie Horton ad of the 1988 Lee Atwater-George H.W. Bush campaign, Gableman’s ad crossed a clear line by suggesting that Butler was tainted for serving as a public defender offering competent defense to an indigent client.

Gableman refused to withdraw the ad or apologize for it, insisting that he was simply drawing a distinction between his experience as a prosecutor and Butler’s experience as a defense attorney.

A number of legal experts believe that this ad violated the prohibition of judges engaging in behavior detrimental to public confidence in the judicial system. Even many of his supporters, including the estimable Charlie Sykes, criticized the ad. So Gableman will join the court with an ethical cloud surrounding him much as Annette Ziegler did last year.

But let no one be confused about those third party groups. They are neither anonymous nor obscure. Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business group, bellied up to the bar and opened its wallet to make sure that the balance of power on the Supreme Court swung in its favor. These greedy, Gordon Gecko-wannabes shouldn’t be given the cloak of invisibility or unaccountability.

Take a look at the WMC board.

These are the folks responsible for replacing Louis Butler with Michael Gableman. Each one probably considers him or herself a civic leader, with ties to the community and charitable causes they support. I’ll bet they love their mothers, are good parents and maybe even have really, really cute pets. Maybe you know one of them or more.

I suggest you do what I did. Contact them and ask them if they were involved in the decision to conduct this campaign and, if so, why.

I exchanged emails with John B. Torinus, Jr., Chairman of Serigraph, Inc. of West Bend. Mr. Torinus, who also pens a business column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, responded that he personally favors public financing of Supreme Court elections though he acknowledged that would be useless unless third party spending was reined in.

We have no choice but to operate under the rules as they exist. So it seems somewhat disingenuous, especially for our corporate leaders, to blame our actions on the system. It’s kind of like blaming the “man” for street crime.

Mr. Torinus also said that Gableman engaged in “bottom fishing” aka negative campaigning. You think?

But I don’t want to end this piece by wringing my hands at those awful people who supported Gableman. As the wise Walt Kelly’s alter ego Pogo once said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

The ultimate responsibility for Tuesday’s outcome is with us, the voters. Turnout was low and the Gableman camp did a better job at getting its people out. Shame on us.

So, as the idealistic youth, Candide, learned so many centuries ago, we must pay more attention to cultivating our garden!

We have another important election coming up in November. We simply can’t be out-maneuvered or out-organized even if it is inevitable that we will be out-spent.

So let’s get busy. Our gardens need cultivating.

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, March 31, 2008

Vote As If Your Life Depended On It

Yes, we all have the right to stay home and not vote. That doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

Yes, elections are messy, aggravating, distasteful affairs. But the brains in our head (the gray matter, if you will) give us the capacity to evaluate the candidates and make an informed decision.

Yes, there is an incredibly important presidential election this year that seems to be sucking the oxygen out of the multitude of local contests here in Wisconsin and elsewhere. But the truth is that your vote for Wisconsin Supreme Court justice may be the most important one you cast this year.

Look, I know that the deluge of manipulative, offensive ads run by so-called independent third party groups make it difficult not to turn your back on the whole unseemly process and wish a pox on both of their houses. But there is a reason these organizations with deep pockets are spending so lavishly on this race. It really matters.

Just imagine if we held a national vote to elect a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. The airwaves would be bursting with provocative ads trying to convince us of the relative merit (or, more likely, the scandalous past) of one candidate or the other.

Could you possibly decide to ignore the process and stay home on Election Day?

So I urge you to approach Tuesday’s election as if your life depended on it. By that I mean you should do what you would do if you learned you have a serious illness and had an important decision to make about your care.

You would go online and research your options. You would seek out experts with the knowledge and experience that could provide you with valuable information to help with the decision. And you would talk to your friends whose opinions you respect.

Time is short. Do your due diligence and vote tomorrow.

I think the choice is clear. Justice Louis Butler is an intelligent, accomplished, respected, ethical jurist who has the support of an overwhelming majority of his fellow judges. His opponent, Mike Gableman, has been a judge for a fraction of the time Justice Butler has and has engaged in the kind of sleazy campaign that is so antithetical to our notion of a respected and thoughtful judiciary.

But don’t take my word for it. Visit the candidates’ own websites, see how the campaign has been covered by the state (and the nation’s) media, and talk to people.

Can’t we all please agree that elections are important and that all of our votes matter? Do I need to remind you of that drawn out debacle 8 years ago in Florida when the term “hanging chad” entered our nation’s vernacular?

So vote. I don’t want to hear any excuses.

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink