That article includes quite a few quotes from union leaders and protestors, none from supporters of the bill. The same journal published several articles opposing the bill. Its bias is obvious and undeniable.

And that bias is probably why it fails to mention the death threats, violent rhetoric, chalk outlines, forcing lawmakers to flee, etc.

All that in order to stop, not merely protest, passage of the bill.

If we're to believe that lawmakers in Washington were in danger on January 6th, despite the complete absence of any violence against lawmakers, we should also believe the lawmakers in Madison were in danger. Death threats should be taken seriously regardless of partisanship.

> That article includes quite a few quotes from union leaders and protestors, none from supporters of the bill. Its bias is obvious and undeniable.

> And that bias is probably why it fails to mention the death threats, violent rhetoric, chalk outlines

Heh. It was an article published Thursday morning about the events that happened Wednesday evening. Of course it doesn't mention everything in the grand context. Do you not understand how news works?

I would also note that this is the article linked from the Washington Post article that you linked.

> forcing lawmakers to flee

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Democratic lawmakers voluntarily, intentionally left Wisconsin for Illinois in order to prevent a quorum.

> All that in order to stop, not merely protest, passage of the bill.

Heh, this is just a bizarre statement. Why would you protest a bill if you weren't trying to stop its passage? Of course they were trying to stop its passage. Aren't there bills that you don't want passed?

> If we're to believe that lawmakers in Washington were in danger on January 6th, despite the complete absence of any violence against lawmakers

Another bizarre statement. There was no violence against lawmakers because the lawmakers were evacuated from the building while the Capitol police were trying to hold back the crowd.

> we should also believe the lawmakers in Madison were in danger for the same reason

No, because protesters were actually in the Wisconsin Capitol when the bill was passed. There was booing, but no violence.

> Death threats should be taken seriously regardless of partisanship.

Agreed, and the police do investigate them. But a lot of politicians of both parties get death threats, and most of them are just rhetoric. There were no assassination attempts on Scott Walker, and he personally wasn't even in the Capitol, as he was the Governor and not a legislator.

As I understand the WaPo piece, it's talking about the events of Wednesday night, not some "grand context": Police found dozens of .22-caliber bullets scattered across the Capitol grounds. The occupiers drew chalk outlines of fake dead bodies etched with Walker’s name on the floor, and carried signs that read “Death to tyrants,” “The only good Republican is a dead Republican” and one with picture of him in crosshairs with the words, “Don’t retreat, Reload.”

> There were no assassination attempts on Scott Walker

Nor were there any assassination attempts on January 6th.

> the lawmakers were evacuated from the building while the Capitol police were trying to hold back the crowd.

It took me a moment to realize you were talking about Washington, because the same thing happened in Madison: The senators hid under a stairwell, out of view, while the police ordered a city bus to pull up in front of the building. Officers then formed a human wall on the sidewalk, parting the sea of protesters and creating a pathway for the senators to reach the bus. Once the senators were on board, “the mob on the street began punching the windows and shaking the vehicle. … The police told the senators and staff inside to keep their heads down in case a window shattered.”

That, by the way, is what I was talking about when I wrote "forcing lawmakers to flee".

Honestly, it's like the WaPo article and the madison.com article are describing different events, except they aren't, just two perspectives on the same event.

> Honestly, it's like the WaPo article and the madison.com article are describing different events, except they aren't, just two perspectives on the same event.

The Washington Post article is literally labeled an "Opinion" by the Washington Post, and it was written by Marc Thiessen, who coincidentally co-wrote a book with Scott Walker: https://www.amazon.com/Unintimidated-Governors-Story-Nations...

Talk about obvious and undeniable bias!

Absolutely biased, no doubt. Not a word in that story about why the bill, maybe, should have failed. Not a single quote from protesters.

Both are undoubtedly guilty of selective reporting.

But let's be clear, are you accusing the WaPo piece of lying, not merely choosing what to cover?

> Both are undoubtedly guilty of selective reporting.

Act 10 had been covered extensively by the Wisconsin State Journal for the previous month. You wouldn't expect every new story to say every single thing. It was already a familiar issue to us all.

> But let's be clear, are you accusing the WaPo piece of lying, not merely choosing what to cover?

I would say exaggerating. Take it from Republican Representative Glenn Grothman, who was there for both events. "It never reached that pitch (during Act 10)."

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/01/08/wisconsin-act...

During the Wisconsin Capitol protests, Grothman was personally surrounded by protesters, who chanted "Shame!" at him but didn't harm him physically. There's even video of this.

"Grothman downplayed the situation and told the paper he didn't think he was ever in any real danger."

I do think we've strayed very far off topic, which is supposed to be Reddit...