Media Monday The Sequel! Whose are the Voter Voices? A reasonable thing to remember when assessing an article. No, Kyle Clark shouldn't moderate the presidential debates.
Whose are the Voters Voices?
There is a program that I've seen touted on many of the left-leaning, Front Range media outlets called Voters Voices.
I did a lot of calling and emailing to try to get some information, sat on that for a bit, and wrote up my thoughts on this program as an op ed which I link to below.
Let me reiterate (as I mention in the op ed) that if you haven't yet, you should take the survey.
Don't make this easy for them. Force them to choose between hearing you and/or ignoring you.
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2024/06/14/gaines-voter-voices-project-progressive-media-bubble/
A reasonable thing to remember when assessing an article ...
I email a fair number of reporters about their articles, often to ask them about why they did or didn't include something I felt should need to be there for fairness. Sometimes these efforts turn into op eds and sometimes they don't.
Out of a sense of fairness, I'd like to share a case where a reporter acted like a regular human and then use this as a way to point out something that is reasonable to consider when you go to assess the work of a reporter or news organization.
The pre-edited version of the KUNC article linked at bottom had quotes about the gun bills from CU Regent Wanda James and gun control advocates Colorado Ceasefire, but absolutely nothing from anyone concerned about government overreach about guns.
I emailed the reporter Mr. Woods, and asked him why. His response is quoted below.
"Hi Cory! Thanks so much for reaching out on this. I totally see your point here and will go ahead and add some context about the opposition to the gun laws in that section. To be fully transparent, this was a quick-turn piece meant to just overview this year’s bill signings with a few highlights, so I didn’t have a lot of time to get too deep into things. I ended up zeroing in on the university regent context instead but should not have overlooked the opposition bit. But now that I’m looking at it, I dropped the ball on the opposition piece with the gun bills, which is important. Also, to clarify, I have covered the opposition to this year’s gun legislation throughout the legislative session and bill signings, on air and on the web. Not an excuse for leaving that out in this one, but want you to know I consider it really important to include that side of this debate."
I want you to compare this to the response I got from the Sun's Michael Booth in my op ed about feedlots linked second below. You'll note quite a difference in town I imagine.
This, Mr. Woods' response, is what it looks like to be a regular human with decent manners. This is what a reporter who is reflective about his craft looks and sounds like.
I want to also point out something that Mr. Woods and I discussed in some of our further correspondence after my initial email because he and I both agree about a point that's easy to lose sight of when you read media.
Don't take one example, one article, too far into extrapolation. That is, it's fair when weighing up someone's work to consider their habits over a longer time period. You would want that for yourself right? We all have off days and sometimes what could look like bias might just be rushing.
When you are trying to assess the reporter, a full look would include going to google and typing in his or her name and looking over a few articles. This gives a sense of something I've alluded to before: just like listening to a group of songs by one artist and then those same songs as done by others would give you a sense of a musician's style, reading across a journalist's work would give a sense of that person's "style" (for lack of a better, more precise word). You can see me doing this in the questions I put to Mr. Booth in my feedlot op ed.
Toward that end, I want to present you with a list of articles (links 3 - 5 below) from Mr. Woods that clearly show he has a habit of seeking comment from more than just one side of an issue.
Be fair until the reporter or outlet gives you reason to not be.
https://www.kunc.org/news/2024-06-11/gov-polis-signed-519-bills-into-law-this-year-the-most-in-over-a-decade
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2024/06/03/gaines-colorado-sun-left-out-lopsided-feedlot-story/
https://www.ksjd.org/2024-05-17/grand-compromises-and-democratic-victories-mark-end-of-2024-legislative-session
https://www.kunc.org/news/2024-04-19/lawmakers-introduce-late-session-bill-to-protect-police-whistleblowers-from-their-departments
https://www.kunc.org/news/2024-01-08/2024-legislative-preview-lawmakers-across-the-political-spectrum-prioritize-housing
Related:
In the article I reference above, you'll find this quote from CU Regent Wanda James:
“'Let me be very clear,' CU Regent Wanda James said after Polis signed the law, 'I am a staunch Second Amendment supporter, I am the only Regent who has served in the military, and I am the only Regent who has actually founded a gun club. And I agree with the students and the faculty when they tell us that they don't want guns in their house.'”
I was hoping to understand, flesh out, and then share what that quote above means with you so I sent the email you see below. Thus far, no answers to my questions. When and if that changes, I'll update.
Hello ma'am,
My name is Cory Gaines. I write for my own substack as well as doing op eds here and there.
I am mulling over a piece either for myself or as an op ed somewhere and found your remarks in the article linked below intriguing.
First, let me start with what I'm not after. I'm not after a debate or an argument. I'm not after trying to convince you or having you try to convince me.
What I am interested in is trying to flesh out your remarks. I'm interested in what I see as a contradiction, a dichotomy.
Are you willing to answer some questions? if phone is easier, AAA-BBB-CCCC.
Here are some general questions I'm thinking of.
1. Can you flesh out how you see yourself as a Second Amendment supporter yet someone who doesn't want someone to carry a gun at CU (and, one could likely make the case, that you don't want someone to have a firearm to defend themselves there)?
2. What limits do you see on guns? Location, type, all fair game?
3. Take it from another direction, what do you see the Second Amendment as guaranteeing? What limits do you see on what the government can do?
4. Do you support all of the Democrat efforts at gun control from the legislature this year? Any a bridge to far? Any not go far enough?
5. Do you get any campaign money from any gun control organizations? Any pro gun organizations?
Thank you for your time. I should say too that if you want to say something I didn't ask about, please do.
C
No, Kyle Clark shouldn't moderate a presidential debate.
After moderating a debate for voters in CD4, there was a call for 9News' Kyle Clark to moderate the presidential debate. The little Axios breezer linked first below has some context if you'd like it.
Calls even went national, keeping Kyle Clark's Twitter full of his trademark humble-bragging for days.
Thing is, Kyle Clark moderating the presidential debate (or frankly any debate not involving Front Range progressives) is a terrible idea.
The first post today is my recent op ed on the Voters Voices project. One of the stated goals of this project was to help ensure that those outlets who signed up for the project (and to my knowledge, and out of fairness, I don't think 9News or Kyle Clark signed on) tailor their coverage to reflect what it is that voters want to hear from their candidates.
This is a perfectly reasonable idea. I think you could (and should) extend this to debate moderation; that is, good debate moderation asks candidates about issues that voters would care about.**
All voters and not just some. That is the issue with Kyle Clark as moderator in any race that would involve any voter demographic outside of urban progressive Democrats.
Let's put aside the obvious bias that Clark has (a well-trod path if ever there was one) and just consider this pragmatically. Do you honestly think Clark would be able to accurately understand and put questions to candidates on issues that conservatives care about? I don't.
Watch the sit down he did with Deborah Flora linked second below. I am a voter in CD4. There were some things that he asked about that I'm concerned with, but at least half of what he's asking about are things that his Front Range, liberal viewing audience is concerned with. His questions are not the ones I hear in the grocery. His questions are not the ones I talk about when I talk with people here (or on social media).
Imagine if Clark were handed the responsibility of trying to extend this outside the state. If he can't manage to capture the things that voters in CD4 were concerned with, how good a job would he do nation-wide? And all this assumes that he'd even be interested in trying to find the issues that matter to at least half the country.
Were he to moderate a presidential debate, I don't think we'd see much difference from what we see with Flora: lots of questions related to Democrat talking points that not many people outside of urban Democrats are concerned about.
Good if he were moderating, say, a debate between candidates for Denver's DA. Bad if it involved anything with ideological diversity.
**That's why I'd personally be in favor of debates run with one moderator from a liberal outlet along with one from a conservative outlet.
https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2024/06/07/jimmy-kimmel-kyle-clark-9news-colorado?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email