Tim Cuprisin, long-time media columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, has seen a lot change during his two decades at the daily paper. He's watched reporters come and go, seen the Web become a driving force in his industry and witnessed the phenomenon called "American Idol."

But from his front-row seat to all the action, Cuprisin, 49, has also gained much insight into what makes Milwaukee media tick. In this latest Milwaukee Talks, we caught up with Cuprisin to get his take on the local TV, radio, print and Web scene.

OMC: Give us the brief Tim Cuprisin story.

Cuprisin: I've been at the Journal / Journal Sentinel since 1986, so about 21 years. And I came as a general assignment reporter from the Green Bay Press-Gazette.

OMC: Are you a Milwaukee native?

TC: I'm not, I'm from Chicago. I started my reporting career in Chicago at a wire service called City News Bureau, which covered mostly police news, but really the city. It was a wire service that was a non-profit organization set up sort of like AP was. I started as a police reporter. My first day we were at the John Gacy murder site, back in 1979, and so in a way, I was covering really hardcore police news. I was there for a couple of years, was an editor there, and then moved up to Green Bay. While I was in Green Bay, I spent about six months at USA Today on a Gannett loan program in Washington. I came back and worked briefly in Green Bay, then came here and got a job as a general assignment reporter.

OMC: And you've been here ever since. So do you consider yourself more of a Milwaukeean or a Chicagoan?

TC: I'm more of a Packer fan than a Bear fan, having lived in Wisconsin since 1980. I love Milwaukee, but Chicago is still home. I still have family there, and I get there as regularly as I can. I have to say, though, Milwaukee is a more livable version of Chicago. It has all the things that a big city has, because it is a big city -- without the congestion of Chicago.

OMC: Some might say you have the first or second best job at the newspaper. Would you agree with that? Behind Bob McGinn, maybe?

TC: He has to work harder, because he has to actually travel places. I can just, theoretically, sit on my couch and listen to the radio and watch TV. The upside is that they pay me to watch TV. The downside is that I have to watch TV or listen to the radio -- to a lot of things that are garbage that other people might not listen to. And while that's entertaining in some ways on its own, it's a job. But I love it, and I can't believe that they pay me to do it.

OMC: When did you become the media critic?

TC: Before the merger (of the Journal and Sentinel). I started in October of '94, and the merger was the following year. But I had a discussion with (now editor) Marty Kaiser, and I remember that it was a night where some big news had happened on the Brewers stadium issue. I was there late on a Friday, and Marty and I started a conversation that turned to television. We had a long talk about the influence of television and how important it is, how it molds everything we do. He, at that time, thought we needed more of that in the paper. Six months later, the column was set up. I was added to do what I do now, basically, and Joanne Weintraub was added to also write long news and bigger-picture things. Mine is more the daily stuff, and hers was seen as the big picture stuff.

OMC: Is it harder than it seems to stay on the cutting edge of pop culture?

TC: Honestly, at this point, I've been doing this since 1994, and so for a lot of local stuff I have a good network of sources. It's like any beat, where you call people and keep in contact regularly. But they also call me, and really, readers are important. When readers notice someone is gone -- sometimes I don't hear when people are fired -- I can then check on that.

OMC: Is a challenge to avoid burning a source when you write something perceived as negative? If someone gets fired, do you watch carefully how you report that?

TC: One of the difficult situations that I have is that I write breaking news in media, but I'm also a columnist, so I'm also able to give my own personal spin. A lot of people don't understand when you see a picture next to a story; that means it reflects my point of view, as well. I would argue that the facts are correct, but sometimes I use those facts to make a point. That becomes very difficult when dealing with sources. For example, when I write about Channel 4, because it's part of the same company (Journal Communications, which owns the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel), I'm critical of some of their changes in their newscast. And then I also have to report on news events there. The upside is that all these people are media people and most of them are media-savvy people, who understand that this is not personal and this is what we do.

To answer your specific question about people who get fired, often, the column is the only place where they have their final say. If it's a radio person, the general principle is that if someone is fired, they are off the microphone (immediately) for fear that they'll jeopardize (the station). They don't get to say goodbye to the listeners, and I think it's only fair to offer some of them a chance to say goodbye, to say what happened, to offer their side of the story. It's also important to remember that in the media, especially in radio, people get fired all the time. It's not the same as in the newspaper, where people don't get fired that way. Firing is less of a stigma in broadcasting.
 Page 1 of 3 

Next >>

4 comments about this article. Post a comment / write a review.

Recent Talkbacks ...