The opinions expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect the opinions of OnMilwaukee.com, its advertisers or editorial staff.

I've noticed for some time that the mainstream media seem to be covering Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker harder than his political opponents.

Double standard? You decide. I'll lay out the evidence. I don't pretend to be able to divine a motive. I can't see into people's minds and hearts to learn why they might write a story a certain way. Or not write a story at all.

But it seems to me that a clear pattern has developed. And it also seems to me that the mainstream media should be consistent in how they cover the gubernatorial candidates from both parties. I have not seen that consistency.

Judge for yourself. Here are three cases that I feel demonstrate a clear double standard in how the media have been covering Scott Walker:

Scott Walker Gives the Media Freebies!

The Harley Ride. This is the most recent, and it's starting to generate some attention. Let's recap. Scott Walker, for the second year in a row, went on a Harley ride throughout the state. On the course of this ride, which tax dollars paid for, he distributed thousands of dollars in promotional passes for Milwaukee tourist attractions to reporters. Walker said that the ticket handout had a public purpose; he argued that it was designed to boost Milwaukee tourism.

Democratic critics and the mainstream media pounced. Critics said Walker's Harley ride was all about boosting his statewide name recognition in the governor's race. They had a point; the Harley ride was not Walker's shrewdest political move. But it's completely disingenuous to think public pronouncements by Gov. Jim Doyle or Congressman Mark Green (Walker's primary opponent) don't also have the dual purpose of benefiting their campaigns. Does anyone seriously think Doyle's campaign machine is not calculating the political benefit of his various public activities, such as the governor's pronouncements on Hurricane Katrina?

Now the double standard. Last week, Doyle threw a barbecue for 60 reporters and their guests at the governor's mansion. The mainstream media ignored this event. Then, I wrote about it on my blog, Charlie Sykes talked about it on his radio show and the Republican Party subsequently accused the media of bias. Doyle's spokesman eventually admitted that reporters were not required to pay, and that not all of them paid for the food, described in a WisPolitics.com subscriber blurb as chicken breasts, wine, carrot cake and other sundries (the governor's office has yet to respond to my open records request seeking a list of who paid, a total cost for the event, etc.).

If it was big news when Walker gave reporters freebies, why was it not equally big news when Doyle gave reporters freebies? To be honest, I don't think either case is a big deal. But I do think it's a big deal when the media cover Walker differently. Doyle's spokesman raised two red herrings:

A: That Tommy Thompson threw similar shindigs for the press. Not relevant. The issue isn't that Doyle threw an event for the press; it's that the media covered Walker differently.

B: That it's a bigger deal to give reporters promotional packets worth hundreds of dollars than it is to give them a cheeseburger. I say a freebie is a freebie. And, yes, there are different degrees. However, arguably Walker's promotional handouts at least had a public purpose -- boosting tourism to Milwaukee. What public purpose is gained by Doyle schmoozing with the Capitol press corps?

The AP and Appleton Post Crescent wrote about the event after it was on my blog and talk radio, but they cast it in a far more partisan way than the Walker ride was cast. And, I'm still waiting for the other media to think this is a story, since the Walker Harley ride was such big news.

Walker Considers Cuts for the Poor!

When Scott Walker considered -- merely considered -- cutting a health care program that serves the poor, it generated the top story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The story was accompanied by the headline, ``Walker Looks at Cuts in Health Care for the Poor.'' The story also generated a negative editorial. Well, it turned out that Walker did not cut the program.

On top of it, he ended up getting $2.7 million out of area hospitals for the Milwaukee County budget as a result. How did the Journal Sentinel play the second story? The paper downplayed it on the metro page in its main edition and buried it in the Waukesha edition (the first story was the top story in the paper in the Waukesha edition, too). And, the paper took Walker out of the active role in the headline for story No. 2: "Funds Assured for Health Care for the Poor.''

So Walker is positioned as the catalyst in the headline when the result is something negative, but he's missing when he's the catalyst for something positive? And it's a bigger story when he considers doing something perceived as a negative, then it is when he actually does something perceived as a positive --on the same issue?

Now, the contrast. Doyle recently made several vetoes that critics said would harm health care for the poor. Specifically, pharmacy owners and nursing home operators said Doyle's vetoes would make them curtail Medicaid services for the poor and elderly. Doyle's vetoes later became a big issue only because Republicans managed to override one of them in a controversial situation where a Democratic legislator claimed he was denied the right to vote.

But when Doyle made the vetoes initially, the story did not get big play at all in the media. I did not see a top story headlined, "Doyle Cuts Health Care for the Poor.'' And, mind you, Doyle actually took an action, whereas Walker just considered one.

Walker is fined by the State Elections Board!

Walker was fined $5,000 because his campaign made automated phone calls without a political disclaimer. Opponents said that Walker's campaign changed its story to the SEB, resulting in the unprecedented action. However, I question why the media never did the work to find out how unusual the fine against Walker was, especially since the vote split along political lines. I submitted an open records request to the SEB for my blog, and I learned that the fine against Walker was unprecedented.

Generally speaking, in lack of political disclaimer cases, the SEB gives campaigns a chance to rectify the situation and takes no action at all. All of the cases that made it to the board were dismissed since 1997, the earliest records available. Certainly, no fine as large as Walker's was ever levied in that time period. Why did the news media not aggressively pursue this context, especially since the lawyer who filed the complaint for two supervisors had previously appeared before the SEB for the Doyle campaign? (something I found out with a Google search, not from reading the media accounts).

Double standard?

You decide. I think the evidence is there. The media should reflect on how they are covering the governor's race. What's fair for one should be fair for all.

Jessica McBride, a former newspaper reporter married to Waukesha County DA Paul Bucher -- a Republican candidate state attorney general -- teaches journalism at UW-Milwaukee and writes a blog.

Sign up now for a free e-mail election service from WisPolitics.com. Click here.