HeyNext why does Kyle Clark have a different standard for Evans as opposed to Crow? Kipp and Soper are back at it: making you second class to the media.

How does not answering become "in line with Trump" for Gabe Evans, and why isn't Jason Crow "in line with Biden"?

Def: "In line with" (idiom) to be in support of or in conformity with something.

TV news anchor, and local media spirit animal, Kyle Clark has long maintained that he considers it his duty to have one standard for everyone, regardless of who they are.

This is a reasonable position to hold. You might (as Clark alluded to when he spoke with Jon Caldara in a recent Devil's Advocate episode linked first below) argue about the standard he chooses, but Clark's position is reasonable in the sense that he at least aspires to be consistent.

But let's take another perspective on things. In addition to asking about whatever internal rubric Clark is using, it's also fair to ask about whether or not Clark ACTUALLY holds himself to his own standard; it's great to pop out that Vaseline-slick TV earnestness and say the applause lines, but it's another to hold yourself to them.

Putting aside legitimate questions of how frequently Clark seeks out opportunities to hold people of different ideologies or parties to his chosen standard, his work can, at first blush, indeed appear to match his words.

A closer examination reveals that this isn't always the case, however. Like the sun occasionally peeking out on a cloudy day, the bias is there and pops its head up every so often. You just need to be present to see it.

As I joked with a friend recently, I've been on a (mostly) Clark-free diet these past few months and I've never felt better. While doing some research for an upcoming op ed on the media, I came across something that felt important to share (both because it is illustrative of Clark failing to meet his own standard and because it points to a larger point about media) but which didn't exactly fit the theme of the op ed itself.

Let's dig in.

Screenshots 1 - 3 (to be read in that order) come off of a Kyle Clark Twitter thread from Jan 21st.

Note two things about the third screenshot: in response to Sengenberger's question about whether they asked Colorado Democrats re. Biden's last minute pardons, Clark tells him that, quoting, "We did ask CO Dems about Biden's preemptive pardons and reported that on Next today."

And Clark was right. I am not sure if this is the particular story Clark references, but the second link below has what Clark seems to mean when he tells Sengenberger that (again, quoting from Twitter): "DeGette defended them, Neguse opposed them, Pettersen raised concerns about them, Crow's answer was not responsive to our Qs."

Screenshot 4 from the 9News article seems to match.

So far so good. In keeping with the above, Clark seems to be holding everyone to the same standard.

Fast forward one day to Jan 22nd. Screenshot 5 comes from Clark's Twitter account. I link to the particular post third below in case you would like to hear Clark read out essentially what he puts in his tweet.

Quoting this tweet, "He's [Rep Gabe Evans] still in line with Trump."

Pause here for a second because, as I said above, with Clark the bias is subtle but there. When Rep Crow doesn't respond to Clark or Nexton9News, he's not responsive to questions. When Evans doesn't, he's "in line with Trump" on the Jan 6th pardons; he's in support of them or in conformity with them.

Quite a leap, the fair thing to note about what Evans did or didn't do, who he aligns with or not, is that he hasn't said. It's not fair to say he's in line with Trump if all he did was not answer Clark's questions.

And, more to the point here, note that Clark does not take this leap with Crow.** Not in the article and not that I could find on his Twitter account searching at least from the 21st to the 23rd.

Besides offering an example of when Clark failed to meet his own limited and self-defined vision of fairness, we have here an example of a wider dynamic to watch for in the left-leaning press: pay careful attention to details such as word choice.

Journalists often point to this or that story, this or that thing they've covered as evidence of fairness, and, in one sense, it can be. But you should be looking deeper than simply whether or not it was covered in any particular outlet, you should also be looking at how it was covered.

What adjectives are used to describe different parties? Are any motives assumed by the reporter(s)?

Are the choices the reporter(s) for one person "in line" with those for another?

**You may notice in the 9News article linked below that the author (Zelinger) says Evans "did not respond", a fair statement and one matching Crow. The distinction here is that this was not written by Clark. I am sticking to Clark's spoken or written words because they come from him.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/local-politics/coloradans-pardoned-jan-6-capitol-attack-trump/73-7e208d5e-b78e-471c-a646-2d1a52e70dee

https://x.com/KyleClark/status/1882294298563252490

---

Kipp and Soper are back at it: making you second class to the media.

Senator Cathy Kipp (D) and Rep Matt Soper (R) are back at it (with some new faces): they're trying to "fix" CORA requests so as to avoid what they term as abuse.

Their bill is linked first below.

While this effort has some good spots in it, and fewer bad spots than last year's, it still has plenty of bad.

I cover it in more detail in my op ed linked second below, but one of the more irksome things bears special mention here.

Like last year's effort it divides us up into the haves and the have-nots. If you meet the government's definition of media, you have easier rules than if you don't.

If you aren't media, you get to wait longer for your requests. Nevermind that you fund the government just as much as the media (if not more on a per-person basis), you're second class.

Not okay. I hope you join me in asking the sponsors to either excise the bad spots o throw this one on the trash heap.

Oh, and I can't but not take the opportunity to mention that, even if you live in a district with Republican elected officials, you should be watching what they're doing. As you can see with Soper here (and in other spots), Republican representation doesn't always equal good policy.

One last tidbit, a last-minute addition. A check on the bill page recently showed that this bill is up for its first committee hearing on Thurs 2/20 "Upon Adjournment" (the committee starts as soon as the regular, full-legislature business wraps for the day).

I signed up for testimony and hope to make it (I also sent my op ed as written testimony in case). I encourage you to do the same, particularly if you are another "citizen" requestor.

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25-077

https://completecolorado.com/2025/01/31/colorado-open-records-reform-bill-fails-smell-test/