Janesville Newspapers Raise Eyebrows

The front page headlines, “Sheriff complaints get hearing” of the Oct. 3rd edition of the Janesville Gazette focused entirely on Rock County Sheriff Runaas and the complaint filed against him by two women. They ran two articles side by side under the title, detailing the alleged verbal transgressions and reporting that a third unnamed woman had filed a complaint against the sheriff in 2004. But this time around, the paper seemed to have gone out of their way to separate the two leading candidates for sheriff from the controversy. Nowhere did the articles contain references to Chief Deputy Spoden or Wasemiller. This was surprising.

But fast-forward to the weekend of Oct. 7th and both the Janesville Messenger and the Gazette ran front page stories on the Sheriffs race. The Messenger I would admit carried equal coverage on all the candidates and some issues, but while they mentioned the womens complaint of Spoden in the Runaas case, they de-emphasized the accusers link with the Wasemiller campaign. The Messenger along with some readers seem to think that because the women’s complaints were filed before they joined Wasemillers campaign that leaves him (Wasemiller) off the hook. It does as far as the Runaas is concerned, but months later after filing the complaint, and as members of Wasemillers campaign, the victims decided to publicize their complaint in statements made to the Gazette. In their interview about the complaint, the women basically told the Gazette in rather uncomplicated terms that Spoden would make a terrible sheriff and Wasemiller would make a good one. They certainly have the right to say this, but lets face it, it nearly invalidates their credibility and lends to a suspicious motive. You don’t come out making serious allegations against Joe Democrat and in the same breath start making endorsements of Joe Republican two months before election. Unfortunately, you can't take back words and make things unsaid.

Also, my guess is that had the women never joined the Wasemiller campaign, they probably would not have gone public with their complaint in September.

Now I turn to the Gazette, and they continue to blow my mind. The Oct. 7th edition included a article on the frontpage titled, “Winning the race for $heriff” and yes it had the dollar sign instead of the letter ‘S.’ The first paragraph nearly explains it all.

JG excerpt:
If dollars were votes and the Rock County sheriffs election had been held on Sept.5, Republican Scott Wasemiller would have beaten Democrat Bob Spoden in a close race.

Several things here. No.1: If there's one office you don’t want money tied into, it’s the law enforcement office of the sheriff. Instead of dealing with the issues, the Gazette continues to fabricate suppositions as a meaningful way to shift public attention or more importantly, create excitement for their favored candidate. In this case however, it may have backfired. The paragraph could also imply that the candidate with the most money gets the most votes and although in many cases that is true, why they would choose to politicize the sheriffs office in this way is shocking. They not only did Wasemiller a disservice, but Spoden, Keller and their supporters as well. No.2: Inside the paper, the Gazette then prints the names and the amounts given by all the major donors to each candidates campaign. Sure, this is public information that is available if you know where to look, but considering these are mostly private individuals and residents of Rock County and not some special interest or corporation, the Gazette went way too far in their misguided attempt to create a story. Doing this with Green, Doyle, Ryan, Gard, J.B. Hollen or Falk might have some merit, but the sheriffs office? No.3: With Republicans taking a well-deserved pounding at the White House and in Congress, the Gazette writes that all the candidates said voters will ignore party lines and choose the best candidate. What would you expect them to say? Typically, Congress is a cross section of the voting population and both are partisan to different degrees. Smart candidates know who their audience is, and speak accordingly. When they are among their party, only then will you get the partisan answer you expect.
In addition to the sheriffs article, a letter writer to the Gazette makes an attempt to discredit the link between the accusing women and Wasemiller, complaining that people shouldn’t attribute to Wasemiller the airing of the ladies complaints. Fortunately, it was the women who linked with Wasemiller and endorsed him in their publicity statements. Letter writers and people like myself who see the obvious connection have no need to fabricate anything regarding the controversy.

JG letter excerpt:
Our civil protection should have no party. We believe in Wasemiller. He’s earned our respect and that of many through the years, not only in law enforcement but in his church and with youth. His family works hard together for God and the community.

Why is it so bad and negative to publicize and support the political philosophy of a political candidate running for elected office, but perfectly fine and good to publicize and support the religious beliefs of a political candidate? Is Wasemiller running for the wrong office? Perhaps he should consider the priesthood or a ministry.