U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 19, 2010 08:45 PM UTC

ColoradoPols: Less "Fair and Balanced" than Faux News

  • 36 Comments
  • by: StrykerK2

This morning’s diary attacking Romanoff on immigration made me start thinking about Colorado Pols coverage of the senate race.  I know the usual response is that Pols simply reposts relevant news stories and isn’t a news source, etc, but it’s a pretty bad argument.  Pols proudly touts that more people read their site than the Denver Post’s political section (a claim I’d be curious to see some numbers on).

Even if we take those claims at their word, the true power is, of course, on the cutting room floor.  Think of it this way: If there were 100 news stories that are favorable to Romanoff, and 3 that aren’t, and Pols posts those three, it appears to readers of their blog that all the stories are bad for Romanoff.  Simple right?

Since Pols also enjoys posting up stories that make candidates/campaigns look silly (which I’ll admit I find entertaining), I wanted to share a short list of stories that they apparently missed.

1) Campaigns responding to hostile press.  Now Pols ran multiple pieces about the Romanoff campaign responding to questions about their banner.  Pols also frontpaged diaries attacking the Romanoff campaign arguing details on Bennet’s tie to predatory lenders (Westwood college).  What didn’t they run?  Well let’s see:

     a. Bennet picking a fight with Mario Solis.  About a week ago, Mario said a few critical things about Bennet.  The Bennet campaign response?  Filling Mario’s inbox and voicemail with bitching and threatening responses…from the campaign.  That’s right, the Bennet campaign thought it was a good idea to have their new Rahm mini-me pick a fight with one of the two biggest progressive talk show hosts in the state.  Pols coverage?  Silence.  (On a related note, props to Mario for standing up for himself and calling them out).

     b. Worst spin ever.  Every campaign spins; it’s what they do.  Those of us who watch campaigns come to accept it.  When spin is completely outrageous, however, it warrants some criticism.  My favorite ignored spin from the Bennet campaign?  Bennet’s loss on caucus night being a crippling blow to the Romanoff campaign.  I’m not getting into a “how important is the caucus/assembly” argument here (I’m well aware of what it does and doesn’t mean), but let’s be serious.  A loss being a crippling blow to the opponent?  That’s about as extreme of spin as you can get.  Pols response?  Silence.  (Maybe when Bennet loses the primary he’ll issue a statement that it was a better than expected showing because primary voters are Romanoff’s base (you know…Democrats)).

2) Staff changes.  Every campaign ends up changing some staff.  Sometimes it’s legit, like Romanoff’s first temporary press person starting a family.  Sometimes it’s because someone isn’t working out.  When it becomes excessive, it’s something noteworthy.  Reading Pols, however, it would seem as if Romanoff has a new staff every week while Bennet doesn’t.

      a. Bennet is now on his third chief of staff.  For only being in Washington for a few weeks…err…months…err years (whatever the Bennet talking point of the day is), Bennet sure does go through his top-level management a lot.  The kicker?  His most recent one worked for a lobbying firm.  Doesn’t that make some of Bennet’s touted ethics reforms seem a tad hypocritical?  Pols response…well you can guess.  Oh and it’s interesting that their new spokesman is a Rahm appointee and they had to get rid of their caucus director and…well you get the idea.

       b. Compare this to coverage of Romanoff.  Romanoff brings on one of the most experienced campaign managers in the nation…Pols attacks them for changing staff.

Finally, my personal favorite.  Remember when Michael Bennet said bloggers aren’t real people?  I loved that one.  I would assume a blog might find it interesting, but apparently not this one.

I’m pretty sure that Romanoff could save a nun from being hit by a car and Pols would blast him for having too much time on his hands that he’s on a street.

So what’s behind all this?  Is there a grand conspiracy between the Bennet campaign and Pols?  I doubt it.  Honestly I doubt that either is really smart enough to craft such an idea.  But is there some vested interest in “Pols” promoting Bennet?  Well that’s a different question.  Yesterday Pols commented that no one who uses the handle is currently involved with any campaign.

Many different people have written for Colorado Pols, and many different people continue to write for Colorado Pols. Nobody at Colorado Pols has ever been a paid staff member of a current campaign.

You also said that apparently some of you are incompetent and just want to cover up mistakes that you make:

We have a number of authors who post eponymously as Colorado Pols. In this case, one of our writers made an assertion that another author knew was not correct and the comment was deleted by the second author. In retrospect that was not the right thing to do, another comment correcting this misstatement should have been added. We agree that in future cases of this kind, we should resolve an inconsistency between ourselves in a more transparent manner.

But here is the bigger question…what’s in it for you “Pols”?  So there are multiple people who post under the “Colorado Pols” handle.  Who are you mysterious men (or women) behind the curtain?  Are you just a group of failed political groupies who get fired from working PR for labor, bomb out completely when you run for County Commissioner, and otherwise can’t get a real job in politics?  Are you using this site to ingratiate yourselves with the Bennet campaign so maybe…just maybe…you can get back in the good graces of an elected official and actually get off the back benches once in awhile?

In the meantime, if you want to keeping having more readers than the Denver Post political section, maybe you should at least make a token effort to not totally look like you’re sucking up to a particular side.

PS – I also really loved your hard-hitting piece attacking Jane Norton for adopting a dog.  I may have no love for her policies, but your “story” was about as ridiculous as it gets.

Why is Colorado Pols so biased toward Bennet?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tweet
Share

Comments

36 thoughts on “ColoradoPols: Less “Fair and Balanced” than Faux News”

  1. why do you care so much?

    While I don’t agree with you as to the degree that Pols is biased, certainly via most of the posters here who are Bennet supporters I would agree that there is a pro-Bennet slant to the site. However, so what? Most of it comes from the people who post here, and any degree to which it does come from the Dead Guvs, who cares? They explicitly claim that

    Colorado Pols is not a newspaper or a member of the “media,” nor have we EVER claimed otherwise. This is a blog. Nothing more. We hold ourselves to our own standard, which is to try to be accurate — both factually and argumentitavely (that’s definitely not a word). No matter what we write about, there is ALWAYS, always someone who thinks it is because we are biased one way or the other.

    It’s like when John Stewart was on Hardball giving the media shit for not doing good journalism and they tried to turn it back on him by saying that he didn’t either; to which he responded by pointing out that he isn’t a journalist — that his show is on Comedy Central for crying out loud.

    So really, what do you care?

    1. I appreciate the question actually.  

      The “we’re not a news source” is an excuse to not have accountability.  I don’t doubt (and I don’t think you do either) the power that a site like this can have — and does from time to time.  Real journalists like Adam Schrager and others do post on here (and presumably read it).  Pols, regardless of what they say, is part of the Colorado news scene (God help us).

      If you’re a national reporter looking for information on what people think of the race, what do you think turns up in simple google searches?  Colorado Pols.  And when you click on the site, the first thing you see is that more people read Pols than the Denver Post’s political section.

      Pols represents themselves as “Politics, News, and Inside Information” — it’s right there on their top banner.  But if you question their integrity, they run away from that, saying they are “just a blog.”

      I’m a Romanoff supporter.  I make no claim that I’m not.  I get tired of talking with other Democratic activists who say things like “I love Andrew and want to support him, but I keep reading on Colorado Pols that ___ (insert hit piece here)” because they don’t realize how biased this site is.  That’s why I wrote this diary.

      Should people trust Colorado Pols to deliver news?  Well that’s another issue.  Some people trust the national enquirer.  To their credit, they reported about John Edwards having an affair before many others did.  That doesn’t mean they are reputable.

      Pols isn’t a comedy site — they aren’t on comedy central like the daily show.  They want to represent themselves as a real news site, but then run away from that when someone asks about their lack of journalistic integrity.  

      1. because you’re definitely not the only poster who seemingly becomes obsessed with some “bias” on Pols. I am continually baffled by everyone of them and here’s why.

        First off, I think you are dramatically over-estimating the “power” of Pols. No offense to the Dead Guvs, I love your site, but most of the voters in Colorado will never even hear of it much less have it influence their vote. If you think that isn’t true you might want to go take a few deep breaths outside away from the racquetball walls of the blogosphere. Maybe go for a hike, clear your head.

        Also, just because “real” journalists post here, doesn’t confer any sort of journalistic credibility on the site. How can you possibly have real credibility of that sorts on an anonymous site? I don’t live in Colorado anymore, so I don’t watch the local news or read the Post, but I find it hard to believe that either of these outlets would quote Pols without another more legitimate source to corroborate.

        Which brings me to the central point, that if people that you encounter as a Romanoff supporter or legitimate news sources are taking commentary from Pols as absolute truth without verifying the information, it is not the responsibility of the editors here or any of the posters. People should not be taking what’s written on or by Pols as the word of God (again, as much as I love you Pols, you’re not quite to omnipotence yet), and it is no ones responsibility but the readers of any news to be thoughtful and considerate in the consumption of said information. Especially when dealing with an anonymous site that specializes in rumors and “inside information.” I can understand how it’s more understandable to think that news coming from CNN, the NYT, the Washington Post, BBC, or whatever is legitimate without in-depth verification, but we should not be allowing people to set aside their critical evaluation responsibility entirely. ESPECIALLY WHEN DEALING WITH AN “INSIDER’S” BLOG!!!!

        Obviously Pols isn’t a comedy site, and they are not representing themselves as a traditional or “real” news site (IMO), they represent themselves as a political news blog, and while the distinction may seem semantic to you, the implied responsibility to the reader is very different and important.

        1. That’s like reading an op-ed in the Daily Sentinel and accusing the columnist of being ‘biased’ and not a real journalist.

          I am not a journalist–I have never been one since I took some photos for my high school newspaper in 1982 or so.  

          I have opinions, I try to research them a bit, and I write diaries and post comments.  Of course people should accept all my pronouncements as fact-based nuggets of pure wisdom, but I would be skeptical about anyone who does.

          I really think your vendetta against Pols, the Bennet campaign, Bennet supporters (who are probably all paid staff, in your mind), etc. is–by turns–tiring, sadly hilarious, and a waste of your time and effort.  

          But it is your time and effort–so carry on, onward to victory!  Etc. etc.  

    2. Seriously – what does it matter? Especially when you can get the exact opposite content at Squarestate?

      That’s not to slag on S2, by the way, which has done a great job of turning itself around. It’s just that there are two large political blogs in Colorado – one’s going for Bennet, the other for Romanoff. So it’s hard to claim that Romanoff isn’t getting some support online!

      Look, I get where you’re coming from. I can’t speak for the Dead Govs, obviously, but you’d like to see them write a post that lauds Romanoff rather than one that bashes him.

      Here’s the thing: what are they going to laud him for? Sure, he’ll win the state assembly on Saturday…and then what? The problem with blowing up that story to any greater degree is that then you’re dealing with an expectations game – as in, Romanoff’s expected to win the assembly by a large margin (I’d say, back-of-the-envelope, 60-40). So, that’s an old story, with a bit of dog-bites-man tinge to it.

      In every other arena, Romanoff’s gone from bad to worse. Fundraising? Anemic. Polling? He’s gone from being six points behind to being 15 points behind. Messaging? In a pitch-perfect year for populism, he hasn’t even done that right (witness the non-traction with the Westwood One “story”, the cramdown issue, the public option…)

      I mean, what has Romanoff done lately that would cause any observer, biased or not, to say that he’s gaining ground and become a more plausible candidate for the Senate than he was when he first announced?

      You tell me. What are the facts on the ground – besides winning essentially meaningless beauty contests – that point to a Romanoff victory in August?

       

  2. How about yoga or meditation to sooth your nerves?

    You waste a lot of energy being angry at Bennet supporters, yet it doesn’t change anything.  All it does is make you angry.

    Breathe in…. and exhale.  Ohmmmm… ohmmmm…

    1. writing this was quite cathartic.  More importantly, I hope it makes a few people stop to think about how they get their news and the bias that comes with it.

      1. I admit that I didn’t actually read much of your post.  I knew it just be a whole lotta negativity.

        Why don’t you write a half page about why you support Andrew Romanoff?  Can you do it without making any reference whatsoever to Senator Bennet?  That is something I’d actually read.  

        1. I don’t think I said one negative thing about Bennet per se.  I do comment on stories about Bennet that they passed on.  Had those same exact stories been about Romanoff, every one of them would have been frontpaged.

          As far as writing up a piece about why I support Andrew?  Maybe I will.  The problem, of course, is that it won’t get any real attention.  Others have done so here.  The site just promotes diaries that attack Andrew.  That simple.

          1. I’m still agnostic in this primary, and while the site owners and many regular users clearly prefer Bennet, I think they are happy to promote diaries attacking him or supporting other candidates. There’s probably a higher standard for an anti-Bennet diary to get promoted (a pro-Bennet diary doesn’t really need to be long or well-written, and it’s quite OK if it insults other users), but it’s not impossible.

            Give it your best shot. Write about something new, keep the tone mild, make it thought-provoking, and don’t make it personal. I’d be shocked if someone doesn’t promote it. Even if the owners don’t promote it, I’m sure MOTR or Danny will.

            The problem with some Romanoff supporters is that they tend to be somewhat new to the site, which means they face a bunch of hazing from the regulars, and they often get really pissed off about it and let that take over their posts. Their personal grudges seep through everything they write, so that nobody wants to give them a shot. Rise above.

            1. Thanks sxp151.  I’ll give it a shot and hope to earn your recommendation (and maybe their promotion).

              I’m skeptical, but ultimately I do hope that this site becomes more balanced and I’ll do my part to try.

          2. Your post was all the bad stuff about Michael Bennet that didn’t get sufficient attention on Colorado Pols.  

            Whole lotta negativity…

  3. that if picking a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel is a bad thing, then picking a fight with the political site that gets more traffic than the politics section of the newspaper that buys ink by the barrel would be a worse thing.

    Doing this on DailyKOS would get you banned in half a second. I imagine the Dead Guvs are more magnanimous than the Great Orange Satan, but you are really pushing your luck and laying bare your political immaturity.

    2. It’s rude, but really no ruder than we are to each other.

      And I’ve seen some pretty nasty flaming on Kos that didn’t get anyone banned. For months there’s been a lot of vitriol over whether Obama is progressive enough, for example.

  4. Seriously.  There’s this link over on the side that says ‘New Diary’.  Put together some choice quotes from a news source, throw in the links to your sources, make some reasonably sane commentary to go along with it, and post it.

    If it’s news and not some blather, it might even get promoted; who knows, you might become a productive rather than destructive supporter of the Romanoff campaign.

    1. as have others.  If it’s critical of Bennet, is doesn’t get frontpaged.  If it’s critical of Romanoff, Pols jumps on it immediately.

      That’s the problem.

      1. You’ve written three diaries, total.  One of them is this one.  Another was a caucus response diary for which there were at least two Front Page diaries already up that weren’t blatantly campaign-oriented.  And the last was a lame attempt at conflating fundraisers with donors.

        If you’re disappointed with your less-than-stellar promotion rate, perhaps it’s not the editors that are at fault.  IMNSHO, PEBKAC.  HTH.  YHBT.  HAND.

        2. not a single diary that is critical of Bennet that anyone has written on this site is up to snuff huh?

          I think you also miss the broader point about what Pols chooses to write.  Much of the front page is still articles they decide on.

          1. Don’t complain about the Front Page if you don’t provide good material for them to promote.

            As is noted several other places above, the Dead Guvs (or whoever controls this site now) aren’t without biases – they never were.  In addition to that mysterious cabal, two elected guest bloggers also have promotion privileges on the site.  Write a good diary with some meat but without unneeded vitriol and it stands a good chance of getting promoted.  Don’t write, and there’s nothing to promote.

            When I was an FP poster a long time ago, and even today when I’m posting diaries, I tried/try to keep the actual article within the boundaries of something vaguely resembling reporting.  Commentary I leave for a first post, or on rare occasions for after the fold in the extended text of the diary.

  5. I asked, “What are the facts on the ground that would point to a Romanoff victory, besides the caucuses?”

    Obviously, we disagree on the importance of the caucus process. That said, as a suggestion, I’d write less about why you’re supporting Romanoff and more about what makes you think that he’d win.

    I say this because this has been, historically and primarily, a process-oriented site. Nobody hates Romanoff; everyone, I think, agrees that he’s a pretty likable guy and a polished politician.

    That’s why I think a diary that’s all about, “I like Romanoff because X” won’t get as much traction as a diary that says “I think Romanoff is going to win in August because of X, Y and Z factors”.

    Just a thought. All else aside, I think you bring a fair amount to the site.

    1. I can hardly remember any diary that ever got promoted because it dealt with ideas. This site is really happier to do horse-race stuff and insider gossip.

      Don’t say “I’m pissed at Bennet for cramdown.” Say “Eastern plains voters are pissed at Bennet for cramdown.” It adds credibility. 😉

  6. First this site is not an even-handed dispassionate site. If it was we’d all leave. It is incredibly partisan. But it is also all-partisan – from the far left to the far right. That’s also why it works so well.

    In a site like this you can never have balance. You can look for even treatment, but not balance. And on the even treatment, I think Pols does pretty well.

    As to being fair in what’s written, that really depends on who’s doing the writing. I’ll agree that the “Pols posts” are biased, but aren’t we all? I try very hard to be even-handed in the interviews I do, but we all bring our own biases to the table.

    I think the trick here is to have people speak honestly to their biases. I think with the multiple biases and the rapid response to incorrect info, that out of this mess a large degree of truth emerges.

    1. This exact post happens every two years, and we’ll see it several few times. Go back to Holtzman vs. Beauprez or Permutter vs. Lamm or…well, any significant horse race of the last six years.

      The entire purpose of posts like these is to try to convince us to write more about the candidate favored by the author. Like we said, this isn’t the first post like this that has crossed these here Internets. And that’s okay — we understand, and we certainly wouldn’t remove the post or ban someone for writing it.

      People have been critical of this site since day one, but we just call ’em like we see ’em. People who write posts like this always forget that we give credit where it is due (like the hiring of Bill Romjue as a positive sign for Romanoff). But we also don’t sugarcoat things, either. To call Romjue one of the most experienced managers in the country is silly; there’s a reason he was available for the job in mid-December, and it’s not because he is so well-known and experienced that he just refused jobs until Romanoff came along.

      And to repeat what others have said in the comments above, what exactly should we have been praising Romanoff for lately? Or forget Romanoff for a second — there’s a reason you haven’t seen any laudatory posts about Tom Wiens or Scott McInnis or even someone as relatively uncontroversial as Ed Perlmutter. That reason? Nothing is happening (or, better said, nothing is happening of any significance).

      It’s not bias that you haven’t seen a post lately that talks glowingly about the campaigns of Romanoff or Wiens or anybody else — it’s because there’s nothing to say. And if that’s our fault, well, sorry. We’ll try harder to make sure that every campaign does better.

  9. …the Moonrakers, the Geckos, Ruthie/Sybil, the Dr. Dobson Has Godlike Qualities, and so many I’ve forgotten, all crying about the lack of fairness.

    They could never get it through their thick skulls (maybe why they were righties!) that this is a private site and CPols can do whatever they want.  You know, the much vaunted private enterprise model.  

    Another commonality is that they predict huge Republican sweeps with every election, and then they just fade out to the search box here.

    As to the topic at hand, my reaction, increasingly as I read this very long post, was, “He protesteth too much.”  Way, way, too wrapped up.  As said, go for a hike, meditate.  This isn’t an Obama/McCain dichotomy, either man will serve Colorado well.  

    1. Ruthie/Sybil was wierd, though.

      The poster that stands out in my memory was Lamborn Has Godlike Qualities. He didn’t stick around long, but damn, s/he was good.

      Got any oil in your front yard yet, Parsing?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

127 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!