Governor Polis' newfound concern over "the will of the voters". Is it indeed black and white or is it Black and White? Wait, Republicans don't trust the media?
Is it really voter intent that Polis cares about? His record would seem to indicate this is not a concern.
Citing concerns over delays at the Federal level and a desire to implement the will of the people, Gov Polis vetoed SB 256--the bill that would have delayed wolves being released pending the completion of a Federal study about wolves and the 10(j) experimental designation which would allow for killing wolves that threatened livestock/pets/property.
To give some full context, there is not agreement, even among those of Polis' own party (see the attached screenshot for Sen Robert's reaction to Polis' veto) about this law delaying or hampering the Fed's work.
I would also point you to the following:
Gov Polis was never this concerned about voter intent when he signed ...
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-260
and
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb19-181
Both of which came about after voters specifically asked for consent on both taxes, fees, and enterprises and voted down mandatory setbacks.
I guess wolves are different though.
Is it Black and White? Is it black and white? Is it Black and white?
The screenshots attached are from a media newsletter I'm signed up for. I thought I would share an interesting tidbit I saw in one a couple weeks back.
Here is the context of the story you'll find in the screenshots. The Colorado Times Recorder is an online newspaper that is BEYOND liberal/progressive. The Gazettes (either Springs or Denver) are right-leaning papers, though (and arguments could reasonably made against my stand due to my own biases) not as far to the right as the Recorder is to the left.
The upshot of the story is that the Times Recorder ran a story about how the opinions page editor at the Gazette circulated a memo to writers that said they would not be following the Associated Press style guidelines which say that the word black, when used to refer to a person, should be capitalized. The editor said that since the AP guidelines do not call for capitalizing white when referring to a person, they won't use a special form for one and not the other.
I'm sure the uber-progressive Times Recorder made lots of hay from this for their readers. Any chance to scold someone for not having the "approved" ways of doing things right?
You know what I think? I don't think I care. Capitalize, don't, I get paid the same either way. I do hold with the editor, however, in saying there should be consistency. If we do (or not) for one, we do (or not) for the other. For my part, I'll probably not capitalize either; I didn't realize there was a style guide calling for capitalization, and it's faster to not capitalize anything.
I wonder how many black people are aware of the style guide and how many are concerned. I'm sure there are some, and I would, in correspondence with that person as a sign of respect, likely capitalize. Outside of that, however, this seems like another issue of white people assuming things about all black people and telling them what is good for them (whether they as individuals agree or no).
Wait just one minute: Republicans (and others though it's not in the story) don't trust the media?
Next you'll be telling me about how people need to drink water and breathe air.
Let me start with a quote from the article linked below.
"Kevin Edling, who ran for Arapahoe County sheriff against Democrat Tyler Brown in 2022, said all media, including local media, should get back to the 'baseline of reporting facts and not reaching conclusions for the reader or for the viewer.' 'I know that the American public is smart enough to come up with their own conclusions,' he said."
Yes. People aren't dumb. One of the things you learn quickly when you have children (or teach them) is that we humans have pretty decent built-in BS detectors.
Maybe we don't have the ability to pin down the particular flavor we're being served, maybe we don't have the precise language to articulate what we're being served, but we know it.
Small wonder, then, that the media feeding us BS makes us, "us" being more than Republicans given the surveys I've seen though the percentage is higher among Republicans than Democrats, not trust the media.
We have years of the media telling us how fair they are despite what the ready evidence of our senses (both in what's covered and what's not covered). We have years of them brushing off genuine criticism as grumbling over the fact that they cover controversial topics. We have years of them rarely if ever revisiting the things they got wrong.
Normally this would be a case of tough love: a case of letting the media deal with the consequences of their decisions. But there's a catch here that I think is easy to overlook. It's laid out in the article (quoting): "This distrust, in addition to causing potential sources to decline interviews, created hesitancy in others who did end up participating in the reporting process."
This is not good for a group (here I refer to conservatives and Republicans in Colorado) that is in the political minority, and who desperately need to get their message out into the public square.
That's a shame and it's something that we should correct. We as a group , and our politicians, should continue to support conservative media outlets to bolster the options available, but then turn around and speak to left-leaning outlets too.
I completely understand the mistrust and the concern, but the numbers in this state for conservatives are such that you cannot just withdraw to your camp and speak to them and still hope for any influence.