Surely media experts have no axe to grind, no political bent. Jared Polis' (literal) fast talking: one way he handles the media. Lastly, the Sun's Mark Jaffe and his marvelous, magical, misdirection.
The media continue (unabated) their practice of assuming that "experts" (professors and the like) are neutral.
No, they're not and there needs to be either a consistency in labels. We either don't characterize anyone or we should characterize professors and other experts.
Check out the attached screenshot from the article below.** Do you note the disparity between the highlighted portions?
If you missed it, don't feel bad. It's subtle. Notice how the politics of the person highlighted in blue are noted but those of the professor, highlighted in red, are not.
To anyone with a functioning brain, the politics of the professor in red are easy to spot by his words, but nonetheless, we do not see the reporter characterizing them.
In a fit of pique, I got curious enough to email to the reporter who wrote the article to ask why. The text of my email is attached as a screenshot.
I got the following back:
"Hi Cory,
Since most of our readers would not be familiar with the Institute for Justice, (Bindas' employer), I wanted to give some context about their approach to law practice. In Green's case, his employer is Willamette University, which I think is a little harder to characterize."
It's pretty apparent that this particular reporter seems to not recognize that Willamette University, or its law school, might have an "approach", and, though she doesn't outright say it, my guess is that she may not recognize the professor's "approach" either.
This is pretty common. Many reporters do not think of professors/schools as having motives, having biases, having perspectives that guide them. I think that they see a professor proffering his or her opinion a good way to get some quick information into their article and lazily/thoughtlessly toss it in without thinking through whether or not the opinion would be shared by others in that field.
Further, why would anyone need to add context at all? I would think that readers could get context enough by reading the quotes and weighing any actions they've taken. I certainly did from the professor's comment. I could have done just as well with the other.
Lest you think it innocuous, I urge you to go and reread the snippet this time mentally editing out the bit about the "Libertarian public interest law firm" out. Read it to yourself out loud. Alternatively, leave it in but read the bit out loud this time inserting the words "Steve Green, a left-leaning law professor at Willamette University..." or "Steve Green a law professor at left-leaning Willamette University ..."
Do you catch the difference now?
Labeling one and not the other, whether done with intention or not, whether done in a way that might get target audience approval or not, puts a bright red attention-getting symbol on one party and not the other. It singles them out and tempts you to try and take their shortcut in assigning motive. This is particularly the case in times of political polarization.
What are you as a media consumer to do?
I would recommend my usual: make sure you read widely and read from a variety of outlets. But, add to that an awareness of adjectives that reporters use. Those tiny little, yet important, words have a nasty habit of tilting things.
Note who gets them and who doesn't. Note what they are. Play with the words a little and try "editing" them out or try adding in others.
In short, keep your wits about you and keeping asking how things might have been written differently.
**The article itself, about a potential conflict between the state giving money and religious schools wanting to retain their religious character, is worth a read. It touches on an interesting question of where and how the separation of church and state is when the state is giving money to private organizations to educate children.
https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2023/11/28/potential-religious-education-ban-in-state-funded-preschools/
One way in which Gov Polis "handles" the media--and many let him.
Gov Polis was on Ross Kaminsky's show recently to discuss the recent special session (among other things).**
I have to admit that I didn't listen to the whole thing. I had to stop because I found it too frustrating.
There are the obvious hallmarks there of any career politician being interviewed--the usual "I agree with what you're saying while I'm sitting in front of you and I'll later say the complete opposite while sitting with someone else" routine for one.
I'm used to this. No, I found the interview frustrating because Polis so easily leads the press around by the nose and they (so easily) let him. All the more baffling too because what he's doing is really not that sophisticated. He filibusters. He fills air time.
And boy does he do it quickly. Listen to the interview, then watch the old Fed Ex commercial linked below it. Like peas in a pod.
Unfortunately, unlike the canonical filibuster of, say, reading the phone book, Polis filibustering involves making a lot of claims that need to be checked and/or at least delved into in more detail.
So when he's done peppering the host with a combination of hot air and political claims, they sit there dazzled and able only to respond to one thing.
In this case (as has happened with Kyle Clark), Kaminsky does at least return to one question, but in the repeated attempts to drag a specific answer out of Polis, Polis has made multiple other statements that go unchecked. Even worse, some reporters simply nod and dutifully take down some part of what they're told. Got my quote and off to write it up.
One wishes for a reporter who would take a tape recorder, and play back what Polis said at 75% speed and go claim by claim with him or at least in their article.
You and I both know what would happen in that case. It would be the same thing as has happened before with other reporters who deign to hold Polis' feet to the fire. They don't ever get called on at conferences and Polis ignores interview requests.
Maybe that's why they don't honestly challenge him?
https://koacolorado.iheart.com/featured/ross-kaminsky/content/2023-11-29-governor-jared-polis-live-in-studio-on-prop-tax-relief-special-session/
And, while we're at it, remember folks, follow the red ball. Ignore the rest.
The Sun article just out this morning was a marvel of misdirection. I mean, this is worthy of a magician.
It's another installment of the Sun's "High Cost of Colorado" series, this time dealing with energy.
And while, yes, it does make mention of Democrat policy that has made prices spike since they took control of all 3 levers of power in this state, what's really going on, you need to remember, is nasty old Xcel and their profiteering!
That's right folks, keep your eyes over here on this shiny object. Yes, my other hand is doing things, but it's not as important.
So, while (to quote Mr. Levis of the Office of Utillity Consumer Advocate from the article), "The legislature has a role in raising bills", what you'll mainly read in the article is what Xcel has done.
If you're bored and doubt me, go count up words talking about Xcel's actions vs. the words to describe what the government of Colorado has done.
A government under Democrat control since 2019.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to defend Xcel. They do take advantage and are masters at making us help them profit. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" game for them and the PUC has allowed this for years now (including going back prior to the Dem's takeover).
At the same time a complete article wouldn't just give sidelong mention to the legislature playing a role. It would directly tie the actions that Xcel has made to the actions of the (again, I can't stress this enough) Democrat-controlled government.
Because a goodly portion of what Xcel's doing is at the behest of the Democrats and it's costing you dearly.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/12/04/utility-bills-increase-xcel-energy-colorado/