Reading Time: 2 minutes

Artificial intelligence is a fraught topic for journalists — just ask the guy who <ahem> “wrote” this year’s summer reading list for the Chicago Sun-Times.

But for all its risks, AI also presents opportunities we are just now starting to understand. For example, Wisconsin Watch has been an early user and partner with Gigafact on an AI-powered tool they have built that can help analyze the thousands of hours of podcasts, social media videos and talk radio programs that could be spreading misinformation every day.

The tool, known as Parser, can process an hourlong audio file in a matter of minutes and not only provide a transcript, but also identify specific claims made during the audio segment and even the person making the claim.

Wisconsin Watch fact briefs reporter Tom Kertscher has been using Parser to make it easier to find surprising and dubious claims. Before Parser he would listen to those hourlong podcasts and radio shows himself, trying to pick up on what Wisconsin politicians were saying. In tracking how much time it took to produce a fact brief, we found in some cases almost half the time was spent just searching for a claim.

Parser has sped up that process, making it possible to scan through far more audio recordings of interviews.

“We can cover so much more ground with Parser, checking many more politicians and interviews than we could manually,” Kertscher said.

Gigafact began developing Parser after Wisconsin Watch provided that feedback on how much time it can take to stay on top of every claim that every politician makes. But the problem of misinformation is far bigger than just keeping tabs on politicians.

Last year the investigative journalism class at UW-Madison worked on a project about talk radio in Wisconsin. One of the key findings was the notable amount of misinformation being spread on the airwaves, especially among conservative pundits.

To do that project, students spent a significant amount of time listening to six radio hosts whose viewpoints spanned the political spectrum. They took four hours for each host from the week after the Super Bowl — 24 hours of audio total — and manually processed the audio into a database of claims. Even with a transcription tool, the process took easily over 100 hours to produce a list of claims to fact-check.

Earlier this year, I worked with Gigafact using Parser to process 24 hours from the same hosts the week after this year’s Super Bowl. We came up with a list of claims in two hours.

Wisconsin Watch and Gigafact presented that case study in using AI at a recent Journalism Educators Institute conference hosted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication. We’ll present it again this week at the Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in New Orleans.

And if you haven’t read it yet, add our investigative journalism project Change is on the Air to your summer reading list. Unfortunately, for the students who devoted so many hours to listening and re-listening to those talk radio hosts, it was not produced using AI. But maybe next time.

How AI helps us fact-check misinformation on the air is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

A common idea in recent years among the information-hungry public is “doing your own research.” People have lost trust in traditional news sources, so they scour the dark, fact-lacking corners of the internet to find out what’s really going on.

I call this the bucket brigade approach to information gathering. It can work, but it doesn’t make much sense in other areas of modern life.

For the most part, people don’t make their own shoes, they don’t build their own cars, and when their house is on fire, they don’t rouse the neighborhood to form a line to the nearest watering hole.

At Wisconsin Watch, our driving purpose is to provide a small brigade of nonpartisan, fact-focused journalists to research topics on behalf of our readers — with transparency surrounding where we find information. One way you can take full advantage of that free service is to submit questions via Ask Wisconsin Watch.

So far this year we’ve answered reader questions about how unauthorized immigrants pay taxes, how federal firings are affecting Wisconsin veterans and whether the cash giveaways Elon Musk gave voters during the spring election were legal. Separately, we were pleased last week when so many people responded to our callout for questions and perspectives about measles in Wisconsin. Those responses are already shaping our coverage.  

Send us your questions about Wisconsin government and civic life and then instead of doing your own research, enjoy another relaxing Wisconsin summer.

Ask Wisconsin Watch: Send us your questions about government and civic life is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

If you want to understand how Wisconsin Supreme Court elections became so political — with a record $100 million spent on this year’s nasty contest — it’s helpful to trace the history of former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman.

Gableman’s career began full of promise, diligence and ambition. His cousin told Wisconsin Watch’s Tom Kertscher that at a young age Gableman “was always the adult in the room.”

But over the course of his career he became entangled in partisan politics.

Gableman was willing to travel hundreds of miles to take political appointments around the state, even receiving a Burnett County judgeship for which he didn’t apply. Gov. Scott McCallum acknowledged to Wisconsin Watch part of the reason he picked Gableman was he was a Republican supporter, bypassing two local finalists recommended by McCallum’s advisory committee for judicial appointments.

When Gableman ran for Wisconsin Supreme Court, he authorized a misleading, racially charged political ad against his opponent. At the time it was shocking enough to draw a formal complaint, but the Supreme Court couldn’t agree if it violated the judicial code of conduct. Now, you couldn’t turn on the TV or scroll social media before this year’s April 1 election without a faceful of misleading ads.

Despite his staunch Republican presence on the state’s high court, writing key opinions on Act 10 and dismissing an investigation into Gov. Scott Walker, Gableman fell out of favor with the party after he attended the 2016 Republican National Convention, in possible violation of judicial rules against partisanship. After causing disturbances in hospitality suites, he had to be escorted to his hotel. Party support for him waned. He decided, at age 50, not to run for a second 10-year term.

And yet, when President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, Republicans called upon Gableman, who worked in Trump’s first administration, to investigate the results. Gableman found no evidence the election results were fraudulent and was called an “embarrassment” by the same Republican leader who hired him. The investigation ultimately cost taxpayers $2.8 million, four times more than its original budget. Now he’s facing a three-year suspension of his law license for his unprofessional conduct during the investigation.

The courts are not supposed to be subject to the same political whims of the legislative and executive branches. Supreme Court justices and judges run for office during nonpartisan spring elections for a reason.

As Kertscher’s account of Gableman’s career shows, raw power politics created this situation. It will be up to the public to decide if it wants something better.

Michael Gableman’s story is a study in how politics have infected Wisconsin’s courts is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.