A little information I have gleaned from "inside" sources. The reason that the WSJ article was so slanted is that it was essentially written by Barsky. He assembled all of the information and sent it to the reporter (who had never heard of the stadium issue before he contacted her). Seeing a possible "scandal," she had no interest in a "fair and balanced" (to use a Murdochian term) piece and basically just took Barsky's "information" and ran with it.

BTW, I also have been doing a bit more checking on BAMSPHD, er I mean Barsky. Guy hasn't published a journal article or book in 5 years and is considered as a flake and loser by many of his peers.

UrsaMajor;739513 said:

---

A little information I have gleaned from "inside" sources. The reason that the WSJ article was so slanted is that it was essentially written by Barsky. He assembled all of the information and sent it to the reporter (who had never heard of the stadium issue before he contacted her). Seeing a possible "scandal," she had no interest in a "fair and balanced" (to use a Murdochian term) piece and basically just took Barsky's "information" and ran with it.

BTW, I also have been doing a bit more checking on BAMSPHD, er I mean Barsky. Guy hasn't published a journal article or book in 5 years and is considered as a flake and loser by many of his peers.

---

I figured he would be lobbying to get that article published. After all, his name seemingly appears in every single anti-stadium story. It can't be a coincidence.

What Cal Athletics should've done is point out that Barsky has been giving off a slanted POV all over the place, just to warn her.

But the thing is -- Murdoch association aside -- she is a veteran reporter at a paper of high-esteem like the Wall Street Journal. She also spent much time at the prestigious Oregonian.

She should know by know to try to get both accurate sides of the story, and that one side is spinning her.

I mean, that was the first thing I was told as a fresman at the Daily Cal.

okaydo;739526 said:

---

I figured he would be lobbying to get that article published. After all, his name seemingly appears in every single anti-stadium story. It can't be a coincidence.

What Cal Athletics should've done is point out that Barsky has been giving off a slanted POV all over the place, just to warn her.

But the thing is -- Murdoch association aside -- she is a veteran reporter at a paper of high-esteem like the Wall Street Journal. She also spent much time at the prestigious Oregonian.

She should know by know to try to get both accurate sides of the story, and that one side is spinning her.

I mean, that was the first thing I was told as a fresman at the Daily Cal.

---

The financing issue is complicated and can be viewed in a variety of different ways -- the really egregious thing (especially for a paper like the Wall St. Journal) is that they described Hank Gehman as an "ardent fan" when the simplest Google search would have revealed him to be an ardent anti-stadium protestor, with his byline on myriad columns stating his position. That is not just a failure of the reporter, but also the fact-checking operation at the Wall St. Journal.

This is precisely the type of BS that makes me hate Barsky.

I agree with many of his concerns. But instead of winning hearts and minds through appropriate discourse, he chooses to pull grandstanding stunts like this. Some of the issues he brings up are--in my view--extremely pertinent. But the manner in which he expresses his dissent is unworthy of Berkeley faculty.

Thanks, this is very interesting. I wonder what Barsky's agenda is. If the stadium is a done deal, what is he gaining by creating this negative publicity? There has to be a reason.

This begs the question: Why is he still part of the faculty? Clearly neither the employer nor the employee enjoy each others company anymore.

maxer;739617 said:

---

That is not just a failure of the reporter, but also the fact-checking operation at the Wall St. Journal.

---

In general, newspapers don't use fact-checkers. It's up to the editors (who can rewrite stories and get the writer to call up more sources) or the copy editor (who writes the headline and ensures proper grammer) to make sure the story is sound.

(You'll only see newspaper fact-checking in some newspapers that "fact-check" presidential candidates on debates and stuff like that.)

It's impossible and too time-consuming to re-report somebody's story, when there are many, many, many stories a day, every day.

As Wikipedia notes, "The resources and time needed for fact-checking means that this work is not done at most newspapers, where reporters' timely ability to correct and verify their own data and information is chief among their qualifications. Publications issued on weekly, monthly, or infrequent bases are more likely to employ fact-checkers."


So it's up to the reporter.

UrsaMajor;739513 said:

---

A little information I have gleaned from "inside" sources. The reason that the WSJ article was so slanted is that it was essentially written by Barsky. He assembled all of the information and sent it to the reporter (who had never heard of the stadium issue before he contacted her). Seeing a possible "scandal," she had no interest in a "fair and balanced" (to use a Murdochian term) piece and basically just took Barsky's "information" and ran with it.

---

pretty much exactly as some of us predicted at the time. the whole article was written like it had been floated by the "anti" side. not sure if I believe that the author had never heard of the stadium issue though. she was a sportswriter at the Oregonian for 16 years; how does she not at least hear of the tree-sitters?

Quote:

---

BTW, I also have been doing a bit more checking on BAMSPHD, er I mean Barsky. Guy hasn't published a journal article or book in 5 years and is considered as a flake and loser by many of his peers.

---

funny, he says such nice things about you..

UrsaMajor;739513 said:

---

A little information I have gleaned from "inside" sources. The reason that the WSJ article was so slanted is that it was essentially written by Barsky. He assembled all of the information and sent it to the reporter (who had never heard of the stadium issue before he contacted her). Seeing a possible "scandal," she had no interest in a "fair and balanced" (to use a Murdochian term) piece and basically just took Barsky's "information" and ran with it.

BTW, I also have been doing a bit more checking on BAMSPHD, er I mean Barsky. Guy hasn't published a journal article or book in 5 years and is considered as a flake and loser by many of his peers.

---

Barsky is teaching less engineering courses, and focusing on photography or sports classes? Sounds like we talked to the same people last night.