These guys couldn't be unbiased if their lives depended upon it. Just look at this article as evidence. A lengthy article was written to simply throw unrelated and unsupported criticism at the Wisconsin Democrats as well as create more confusion. Their argument, that a press release was false when it described Senator Hopper as "recalled" because he hasn't yet officially been recalled.
Ok, so the press release could have been more clear. Enough signatures have been submitted to the GAB to request a recall election, but the GAB is still in the process of reviewing the signatures. However, the term "recalled" was used shorthand in the press release to describe Senator Hopper's current situation. The intent of the press release was not to state that Senator Hopper had been recalled. The Democrats were only using the term to describe Hopper's current situation while stating other new information.
PolitiFact Wisconsin points out the term recalled "suggests an official who is being brought back to stand before the people." By my interpretation, the press release is correct. More than enough signatures have been submitted to bring Hopper back to stand before the people. The GAB just hasn't made it official yet, but I highly doubt Hopper's recall will not be certified by the GAB. Maybe if there was a challenge to the recall there would be reason to doubt it, but there isn't.
I again admit that the press release could have been more clear, but I don't think the intent of the press release was to mislead or to create more confusion.
The PolitiFact article also includes a quote from Hopper's campaign manager, saying that if Hopper wins the recall election "that means he was never recalled." Using the above definition, that statement is patently false. Only if the GAB doesn't certify enough signatures for Hopper's recall election will Hopper never be recalled. Yet, PolitiFact makes no attempt to question the statement.
Calling the statement "Recalled Randy Hopper" "False" is misleading if not flat wrong, and it truly was a waste of their time to write the article and for me to read it.
How does one biased newspaper become the only "true" source of facts in our debates?
Update: (9:02am) It's ridiculous that they offer no way to comment on a PolitiFact article when you can comment on any other Journal Sentinel article. No one can directly refute their claims.
This is another example of a PolitiFact Wisconsin article that shouldn't be posted on a "fact" website. You can't claim a statement is "Barely True" simply because someone doesn't cite enough convincing evidence. If you're going to write an article and state whether something is true or not, you're expected to do the research.