Rest easy, the Progressives running this state know what's best for you. The media drive polarization, they don't just amplify it. Media obtuseness on "sanctuary" cities.

You see, though, it doesn't matter what you want.  The progressives running this state know what's best.

The two links below (a CPR article on the bill about overriding local zoning regs to allow ADU's and an op ed about the bill -- HB24-1075 -- to take yet another run at public health insurance for Colorado) might seem to cover different topics, but they are thematically related.  


Allow me to show you with a couple quotes, pasted here in the same order as the links (CPR, op ed, op ed links left intact):


“'We're not going to have arbitrary regulations stop some of those from being built,' said Sen. Kyle Mullica of Adams County, a Democratic sponsor for the measure."


"In 2016, almost 79 percent of Colorado voters rejected single payer care. They voted against Amendment 69, a single payer health plan for Colorado.  In response, the legislature created the Colorado Commission on Affordable Health Care.  When the Commission’s final report did not recommend a single payer plan in 2017, the legislature created a 'Health Cost Analysis Task Force' in 2019, which in turn hired the Colorado School of Public Health to conduct a 'financial analysis' comparing single payer health system costs with existing system costs. The economically illiterate conclusion was that single payer 'pricing regulations' could control health care cost growth, and that Coloradans supported single payer. That conclusion rested on an analysis of personal interviews with fewer than 100 people and 550 responses to an online survey."


Pick up the common thread?  

None of us plebeians know what we're doing.  Clearly we're wrong in what we decide (via our locally-elected officials who put in place regulations we've consented to and/or asked for).  Clearly we're wrong when it comes to single-payer health insurance.

What we need are progressives sitting far away under the Capitol dome to tell us how to regulate zoning in our towns and what kind of insurance we should have (or at least be willing to pay for so others can enjoy).


https://www.cpr.org/2024/01/30/colorado-could-spend-18-million-dollars-to-get-auxiliary-dwelling-units-adus-built/

https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2024/01/30/gorman-colorado-house-bill-1075-health-care-debacle/

---

The media drive polarization, they don't just amplify it.

The op ed linked below shows some promise to someone like yours truly who does a fair bit of reading and thinking about media.  Checks many of the boxes I like to see checked, but I wonder if the nice words will actually result in any substantive change or whether they'll be more words by people paid to write them. 

Because, sticking closely to the topic of the media and its role in polarization (there's plenty more in the op ed to digest, give it a read if media is  passion),  I can't help but think the authors either miss the media's role or are trying to minimize it.  

The particular quote I mean here is "We’ll be the first to acknowledge that media itself can be an amplifier of discord and distrust."

You see, I don't think that's adequate; that is, I think the media do more than amplify, I think they contribute directly.  They function not only as a pass through, but also as a source.  

Think about the number of times you hear news stories and you hear little to nothing in the way of counterpoint, you hear little debate.  

Think about the message sent to you when you disagree with the prevailing thoughts on the news.  This is sometimes explicitly stated by news people such as Kyle Clark and others who, in so many words, essentially say that there are some issues for which there cannot be "two sides. 

E.g. when was the last time you saw, on any mainstream media outlet at least, the slightest doubt about either climate change, its severity, or our response to it?  

What do you think about how those making the news view you?  What do you think about how those who fall in line with the view of the news outlet view you?

Do you feel either group thinks of you as intelligent?  Thoughtful?  Reasonable?  After all, your views are so far outside the mainstream as to not even be worthy of mention.  Given that, how likely are you to view them favorably and want to compromise with them?

And, yes, you can just as easily flip the politics here and end up at the same place.  

By choosing sides.  By putting themselves in the position of "othering" ideas they don't like out of hand, the media "other" those who are on that side.  And this creates, not just amplifies polarization.  

One last example to help, I hope, drive the point home.  I posted about an op ed by the Aurora Sentinel a while back.  It was an op ed on gun control.  I linked to it second below for convenience's sake.

I had posted it without comment in the interest of balance, in the interest of trying to see the arguments that others might make for gun control, but what I didn't mention was that the day I first read it (a couple days prior to putting it up), I sent in a letter to the editor in response to their piece.

By now there's been ample time for it to be accepted and it hasn't been.  I am going to share it here with you because it helps illustrate the larger point for this post (see the attached screenshot).

The rhetoric of the editors at the Sentinel yells out exactly what I'm saying here.  If one side is seen by the other as aberrant or deviant, and the media put themselves squarely on one side of that divide, without allowing any form of counterpoint, they are active participants in creating divisions.

On the list of 5 goals the authors of the op ed would like to support was the following.  The authors would like to see a future defined by being (quoting):

"Inclusive: Coloradans of all communities see themselves and their concerns reflected in local media; amid complexity, journalists strive to build understanding, empathy, and accountability." 

Nice words.  Let's hope that those in the media, if they're truly interested in helping people understand each other and truly interested in reducing divisions and polarization, take them to heart.

https://coloradosun.com/2024/01/28/opinion-reimagining-the-public-square-civil-discourse/

https://sentinelcolorado.com/opinion/editorial-colorado-can-prove-and-ensure-that-lives-are-more-valuable-than-guns/

---

Media obtuseness on sanctuary cities

When I was a boy, my mom used to accuse me of being intentionally obtuse; that is, I was being intentionally dull and uncomprehending.

I was thinking of that lately because a whole spate of things have come out about Lakewood (among others) and what’s going on up there with regard them being or not being a sanctuary city.

And when I look at some of the coverage, I think it’s time for my mom to dust off that old accusation because in some outlets, the media is being intentionally obtuse.

Let me share a couple links with you so you can see what spurred this post. Below, you’ll find links to a Next story from a few days back about Lakewood and an emergency meeting called by its conservative/Republican citizens. Under that a link by CPR.

Give them a look.

Clearly the idea that Lakewood or Denver/Colorado is a sanctuary city is ludicrous right?

First considering the CPR article, the word sanctuary doesn’t even appear in a Denver dictionary. The word doesn’t exist there! No sir. Not at all.

Except, does the label matter? The “reporter” here, in language so tortured as to be screaming, goes to great lengths to tell us that it’s really not sanctuary because, as his experts have it, sanctuary isn’t defined.

A quick look at my homemade collage has it different. Maybe it’s not defined in law, but I know it when I see it.

Now let’s turn to Next and Kyle Clark.

I know enough to speak intelligently with regard to the CPR article, but with regard to Clark’s claims below, I will be honest and tell you that I don’t know all the details. When that happens, I like to do some asking before talking; better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt after all.

Fortunately, I do know someone that writes a great local online paper from a conservative/fiscally-responsible perspective and she DOES know Lakewood.

I reached out to the Lakewood Informer to see if they were (or would do any) writing in response to Clark’s story. Her most recent post on it, from the actual meeting last night, is linked third below.

You should read/watch both of these items (and look back in the Informers stacks too). By doing so, you’ll get a fuller picture than Clark is giving you. You’ll see that things aren’t perhaps as one sided as he has it.

In fact, I am in agreement with Ms. Morgan (the author of the Informer piece) that what is going on here is some cute word play with Next and the Lakewood Mayor/City Council.

Look at Ms. Morgan’s comments at the meeting in the screenshot below.

I think Lakewood got caught doing something people didn’t like and when the people started speaking up, they backpedaled. Hard.

Clark, ever alert for a controversy he could “one side” by being just as careful as the mayor and CPR swooped in to make his hay from it.

If you know someone in Lakewood, and/or if you like hyper local coverage that (for one reason or another) bigger outlets don’t have a handle on, subscribe/bookmark the Informer.

https://www.cpr.org/2024/02/07/colorado-sanctuary-city-immigrant-protections/

https://lakewoodinformer.com/2024/02/07/the-sanctuary-misinformation-campaign-and-response/