Colorado Times Recorder (CTR), Hutchins, the Gazette, and Glass Houses. Aurora Sentinel's Award for raging about Trump. A yeast for any occasion.

Colorado Times Recorder (CTR), Hutchins, the Gazette, and Glass Houses

There was an interesting bit in Journalism Professor Corey Hutchins' media newsletter recently. That newsletter is linked first below and the quote I reference is attached as screenshot 1. Because pictures don't have working links, I put the CTR article Hutchins links to second below for convenience's sake.

Both the CTR piece and Hutchins blurb are pretty chatty, as much about the insider ball of producing news as anything, but a quote from the CTR piece helps point to another dynamic I think is at play here. It's subtle, stay with me.

Copied here with link intact:

"Criticizing the Gazette newspapers isn’t something local journalists — with some exceptions — like to do. (Here’s one sad story about what I mean.) And it gets more important to do so, as Anshutz’s chain of local newspapers expands in Colorado and other state news outlets teeter or fall.:

In addition to that, I'd offer some related back issues of Hutchins' media newsletter. Links 2 - 6 below are his Substacks dating as far back as 3/2023 and going up to 12/2025. What they all have in common is mention of Anshutz and/or the fact that he owns a series of papers (Gazettes, Colorado Politics). It's not in the all, but it is common across these mentions to see Hutchins pointing out the fact that Anshutz is a billionaire, conservative, or a conservative billionaire.

None of this is wrong, none of it is on its face bad, those are the correct labels. I also think it's fair to point out that both Salzman at CTR and Hutchins dispense some compliments about the Gazette and Colorado politics along with their criticism. See, for example, the bit near the end of screenshot 1.

You can also see it in screenshot 2 attached (coming from link 3 below) for an example from Salzman.

Yet a thorough read of screenshot 2, alongside Hutchins' repeated mention of Anshutz's politics and income point to the subtlety I mentioned at the top. "...as long as they are not all owned by the same Republican billionaire."

It seems as though well-heeled conservatives in news organizations occupy a lot of time and thought among progressive media, and, interestingly, this attention doesn't seem to point the other direction--at least not with the same intensity.**

If you read up on Mr. Salzman's outfit, CTR, you will note that they freely admit to (with Hutchins also regularly mentioning) being a progressive news outlet. If you want to know who funds this progressive reporting, however, you're going to struggle to find that out. The most that CTR will acknowledge is that their donors are progressive.

I wonder if there are any progressive million- or billionaires hiding in there. I wonder if CTR gets any money from foundations, donor advised funds, and the like. I wonder if there are well heeled progressives hiding in there.

I wonder how many progressives and progressive organizations that fund CTR also give to Colorado Newsline, The Colorado Sun, CPR, and other progressive media outlets around Colorado.

I think you can see part of the point. While Hutchins and CTR seem concerned over Anshutz and concentration of media ownership in the hands of monied conservatives, while they seem worried about undue influence by that same group, they apparently don't seem to worry about people on the opposite side of the spectrum doing the same.

The ultimate showcase of that being that Hutchins doesn't think it noteworthy to mention CTR's glass house amid all of CTR's rock throwing.

I wrote to both Hutchins and CTR’s editor Salzman for their take on this. The questions I asked are quoted from my email:

“Mr. Salzman, is it accurate that the Colorado Times Recorder doesn’t reveal its donors? Do you have any rules about disclosure if you reveal some? Do you put any disclosures on articles?”

“Mr. Hutchins, are you aware of CTR’s policy? If so, why not note their policy when discussing the Gazette? Do you intend to follow up?”

I got the following responses back (copied from my email with link intact):


Salzman:

“Those are legitimate questions. I frequently criticize the Gazette, but that doesn’t mean I think our platform occupies the ethical high ground. It’s true that we do not reveal our donors. We make the overarching disclosure that we are a progressive news outlet and that our donors are progressive. We do not have any rules about disclosures. We add disclosures on occasion to our articles. As an example of a disclosure of ours that’s kind of comparable to the Alameda Avenue story, we once published an op-ed about a program that my wife is involved in, and we disclosed this. https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2022/12/bring-older-coloradans-back-to-campus-to-learn-how-to-make-a-difference-when-they-retire/50461/ Most recently, we added a disclosure to a story because Ari Armstrong is a paid columnist and the subject of the story. https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2026/01/new-colorado-group-aims-to-be-public-face-for-non-religious-homeschoolers/76245/“


Hutchins:

“I’ve written about the Colorado Times Recorder not disclosing its donors and saying only that they are progressive funders. It would be nice to know who they are; I often wonder. Same with Complete Colorado and others. They have their reasons why they keep them secret. Might it have been useful to reiterate that CTR doesn’t disclose its donors in the item I wrote in case people didn’t know? Sure. More transparency the better. And if CTR, or any outlet, is reporting on the Alameda road plan — or on anything — and one of its donors is significantly involved, it would certainly be appropriate to disclose that as well.”


It’s fair to note what I’ve written above and what Hutchins and Salzman say in their statements back to me. “Never” and “always” are big words, and should be used sparingly. Neither of them are devils who always bag on conservative billionaires.

But neither are they saints, and there is a decided disparity here in how they treat one media outlet and/or one political orientation, this also in comparison to how they view their own behavior. Acknowledging that your outlet doesn’t occupy the high ground is well and good, but it gets drowned out in the shouting about conservative billionaires. Saying more transparency is better is well and good, but gets drowned out by a litany of calls for transparency mainly from one side of the aisle.

Concentration of ownership in one man’s hands strikes me as just as bad as left-wing funders spreading their wealth among a variety of nonprofit news outlets to accomplish essentially the same concentration. At least in the case of the Gazette and Colorado Politics we have a name to put with the ownership. We have the ability to do what Hutchins and CTR do: we can note conflicts and call them out.

With CTR, the Sun, CPR, Colorado Newsline, we can’t always do that.

**See “Related” for an earlier op ed on this topic.

https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2026/01/did-pressure-from-journalists-prompt-an-anschutz-owned-newspaper-to-publish-a-disclosure-albeit-a-weak-one/75201/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

New book ‘Gangbuster’ recalls 1920s Denver media and the Ku Klux Klan

Newspapers in Colorado's San Luis Valley SOLD to millennial Wyoming publisher

Springs cops asked a TV station to remove video of a mysterious explosion. KKTV complied.

A 'path-breaking' new Colorado printing press rumbles to life in Denver

In court, Colorado's public radio stations fight Trump over his assault on NPR

Related:

I think there is a lot of angst among progressive reporters about media consolidation, and the Tegna sale of 9News is one I see/hear about frequently. It was right there in the quote from the Colorado Times Recorder story I link to above.

Thing is, this apparent concern seems to go one way. It seems to go toward consolidation by for-profit outlets, esp those owned by billionaires.

What doesn’t seem to concern them is how many billionaires are shuttling money through foundations, etc. to nonprofit newsrooms, or how lefty outlets pool their lefty resources to produce shared lefty content.

More glass houses and more stones I suppose.

I cover this at more length in one of my op-eds linked below.

https://completecolorado.com/2025/08/26/ideological-journalism-bigger-worry-9news-sale/

---

Aurora Sentinel’s Award for raging about Trump

Let's stay on the topic of media for another post today. Linked first below is an Aurora Sentinel article tooting their own horn over an award.

According to the piece, the Sentinel is being honored as a "Media and Democracy Hero” by the Media and Democracy Project. Quoting from the article with links left intact:

"The Sentinel was lauded in December for its wide range of coverage, recently examining claims by local police and elected officials about the impact of “get tough” shoplifting laws on crime rates, and especially a Nov. 21 Sentinel Editorial outlining unconstitutional acts by President Donald Trump and calling for his impeachment. 'The groundbreaking piece by their Editorial Board is exemplary, and a perfect reminder of the vital role that independent journalists play in defending our democracy and the public’s right to know,' the organization said in its citation. The Media and Democracy Project described the Sentinel editorial as a rare stance among independent outlets nationwide. The group also highlighted the non-profit paper’s decision to keep its reporting free of paywalls so readers can access coverage online and in print."

The Media and Democracy Project listed also that they appreciate the fact that the Sentinel has no paywalls on its articles.

I am a fan of having a local paper, also a fan of free stuff, so I'm not necessarily in opposition to applauding a local paper. Having local coverage of what your government is doing is important.

The fact that they single out an anti-Trump screed** by the editor as being (quoting again) "... a rare stance among independent outlets nationwide" tells you something about not only the values of the Sentinel, but the values of the Media and Democracy Project and likely many others in the media. The Sentinel crowing about it, journalism professor Corey Hutchins putting it in his newsletter, also tells you something.

It tells you about what these folks see as important.

Keep this in mind when you hear or read the media telling you about how vital they are to protecting democracy. Some number of the people saying that almost surely see things like the Sentinel's op ed as filling that role. This is all the more so when you note that no outlets on the other side of the spectrum (such as Complete Colorado) get plaudits for the same, no editorials about Colorado governors get mention.

**I do not use the word "screed" here lightly. Sentinel Editor Perry is known for his highly irrational, shouting from the pulpit and near-hatred of those that disagree with his politics. To wit, consider the following quote from a different editorial on guns linked second below:

"After each and every mass shooting, and recent shootings are no different, a public call for government action is met by an even more powerful call by the National Rifle Association and other groups to do nothing. In almost each and every case, the NRA, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, their supporters and congressional lackeys win. America loses. It will come as no surprise to almost everyone that despite recent horrific mass shootings, the NRA and Republican lawmakers who are either complicit or outright abetting are poised to squash or diminish even the most demure of national gun control bills."

This is the man who got an award. This is the man whose work is "vital" in "defending our democracy". This is also the man who ignored my questions about his writing here.


https://sentinelcolorado.com/metro/aurora-sentinel-garners-national-award-for-independent-reporting-democracy-support/


https://sentinelcolorado.com/opinion/editorial-if-congress-wont-change-the-gun-laws-change-the-congress/

---

A yeast for any occasion

That time of the week again. This will be the last post til Sunday and thus it's time for something for fun.

I believe I've mentioned before that I like to bake. I do it for fun. I do it for my own consumption. I do it for money as a side hustle.

I am not sure if everyone that gets deep into baking is on the same trajectory I am, but what started out for me as simple bread baking using the flour from the store has turned into multiple flours (bread, all-purpose, medium rye, dark rye, whole wheat, probably some clear flour at some point, in addition to different gluten free blends for different uses), multiple additions like polenta or grain blends, and now the latest addition: special yeasts.

Outside of a wild yeast starter I grew once I moved out to the Plains, I use dried instant yeast for all of my baking. It's quick. It's convenient. I get it in bulk blocks from a supplier and it lives in my freezer.

I have heard (and read) claims about flavor differences for different kinds of yeasts like active dry or fresh, but outside of sourdough starters, I've not noticed any difference in flavor due to the yeast used. Besides, if you are worried about that, breads with any enrichment or goodies added are going to wash out those minor differences. The same could be said for other techniques to enhance flavor like using a sponge or pre-ferment.

There is one notable difference in yeasts, though more of a difference in performance than a difference in flavor. High sugar doughs--Hawaiian/Portuguese breads, cinnamon rolls, Panettone (see the picture heading this post for the mini's I made this last Xmas season)--are hard on yeast and you can buy a special variety of yeast just for that.

It might be counterintuitive--it's easy to figure that yeast and other little bugs would be delighted to be around more, not less, ready food--but yeast don't like high sugar doughs because of osmosis.

Whether bacteria or single-cell fungi, when you put them in a high sugar environment, osmosis causes water to be pulled out through the bug's cell membrane in an effort to balance the books: nature wants to balance the concentrations of sugar on both sides of the permeable cell wall and so it pulls water out of the yeast or bacteria to thin out the high sugar solution outside.

This is why jam can last so long at room temperature, it's why honey (stored right) has a nearly indefinite shelf life. Any time something tries to colonize it, it's dehydrated to death. Sugar, in high enough amounts, is quite a preservative.

Returning to high sugar breads, they don't have enough sugar to sterilize the dough, so you can bake with regular yeast for sweet doughs, but you need to be ready for less rise overall and more time rising.

If you want better, more dependable, and quick rising, you need a special yeast. It's sold by multiple companies, but the kind I bought is the "gold" version of the SAF instant yeast.* If you're curious to learn more, google "osmotolerant variety of yeast" or check out the two links at bottom (the first more technical, the second more approachable).

I have yet to try it, but Easter is just around the corner, bringing with it all kinds of possibilities for celebration breads which involve butter, egg, and sugar. Perhaps I'll revisit the cinnamon rolls from last Xmas.**

That's it for today. If you like to bake and do a lot of sweet doughs, and if you've used osmotolerant yeast in some form or another, feel free to add your experience to the comments!

Have a good rest of the day and back at it Sunday!

*This is not an endorsement, nor do I get paid for this. I just use their red instant yeast so I am sticking with this brand.

**You may have already tried, but in case you've not, here's a tip. Add about 1/2 tsp of lemon or orange extract to either dough, icing, or both. Marvelous addition.

https://bakerpedia.com/ingredients/osmotolerant-yeast/

https://blog.modernistpantry.com/advice/how-to-pick-the-right-yeast/