The Sun's Eason offers a masterclass in advocacy journalism.
The Sun’s Eason offers a masterclass in advocacy journalism
Writer's note: today's is a lengthy, deep dive into media bias. As such it'll be the only thing for today. I split it into two parts. This is part 1.
Get that second cup of coffee, sit back, and learn some media literacy.
The Colorado Sun article linked below, by reporter Brian Eason, is a grab bag of the different ways that reporters can shade news. As such, it's a great opportunity to learn various ways reporters editorialize and slant their news, all in one place. In short, Mr. Eason handily provides us a masterclass in advocacy masquerading as journalism.
Framing is a device used to get in between your intake of information and your "sense-making" of it. The idea is to steer the conversation rather than let you meander and find your own way. It's not pro-life, it's pro choice. If you don't like gun control it's because you're so callous as to not be concerned with children dying.
And Mr. Eason wastes no time in doing it. Starting at the top of the article and continuing down with some non-contiguous quotes (with any links left intact):
"In their ongoing bid to bring down housing costs, statehouse Democrats this year have shifted their attention from townhomes and apartments to pursue a new strategy: shrinking the single-family home."
"That pattern has played out time and again in communities across the state. Polling consistently shows that Coloradans want more affordable housing, but when push comes to shove, they often reject efforts to build it in their own neighborhoods."
"The antidensity campaign prevailed with about 65% of the vote in a low-turnout April 7 election."
Anti-density. Low-turnout (see "Related" below this post). Rejecting affordable housing. Democrats working tirelessly to bring down housing costs. Mr. Eason easing his own views (coincidentally the same as Colorado Democrats and supporters of Lakewood's rezoning) right in there to help put boundaries around your interpretation.
The best way for you, as a media consumer, to skirt framing is to make sure you read widely so you get various frames to help you decide your own, as well as asking questions such as "Is this what everyone thinks? Does anyone see this differently, and how would that look?"
Another broad method of tilting news is to treat different parts of a debate differently. This can be more or less overt, and, for Mr. Eason, shows up as his characterization of both sides of the housing/local control debate.
Quoting again, with links intact:
In Lakewood, a similar dynamic played out this year, when voters repealed the pro-density zoning changes approved by the City Council, following a divisive campaign. Opponents of the new zoning rules claimed WITHOUT EVIDENCE [emphasis added] that the city wanted to 'bulldoze' its single-family neighborhoods on behalf of private developers and force residents into 'permanent rentership.'**
I've written about the use of labels before and this one, "without evidence", is a big one. It's telling you this group is lying without saying they're lying. This label sticks out like a throbbing red thumb because you note none of the claims by anyone else in this piece are tagged with same.
For instance, note the quote from Rep. Rebekah Stewart (a political opponent of the groups opposing Lakewood's rezoning--more soon) appearing further down:
“'I think what frustrates me is when it seems like fear and misinformation is used as a tactic,' said Stewart, a former Lakewood council member. 'We know that the facts and the evidence point towards the types of steps we need to take in order to increase housing availability, first-time homeownership and affordability. But if someone is afraid that their home is going to get bulldozed, it’s just very, very difficult to have a real conversation.'”
Pause for a second and consider what Rep Stewart claims. She is claiming that the solution to the problems of "housing availability, first-time homeownership and affordability" are known. The facts and evidence point toward them, you understand.
As part of the research for this, I emailed Mr. Eason. I asked a number of things, but among them were whether he contacted anyone from the citizen groups, and what evidence Rep Stewart had for her claims.
Mr. Eason did not answer my question about contacting any citizen groups, in particular either group that he links to in his paragraph containing the line "without evidence".
To make sure I got both sides, I reached out through a friend and was connected to someone in Lakewood for All (one of the citizen groups) who told me that Mr. Eason didn't contact them.
Note: I did not correspond or speak with anyone at the other group, the one linked under "bulldoze" above (Lakewood is for Everyone).
Putting aside basic notions of fairness and the tenets of journalism that dictate that you offer someone a chance to respond to claims made about them, a quick talk might have given Mr. Eason some evidence. In my correspondence with someone at Lakewood for All, they indicated they would have been happy to flesh out the claim about "permanent rentership" if asked. Further, a quick look at their site shows you several of their other claims (not just the cherry-picked slogans that Mr. Eason chose), and their reason/evidence for believing them.
In short, perhaps the claim is without evidence because Mr. Eason wants it to be.
With regard to the latter question, Mr. Eason said the article links to a few studies, and he'd be happy to follow up if I had further questions. I did follow up and ask which studies were provided by Rep Stewart. As of this writing, I have received no answer. We will touch on the quality of those studies in the second post today.
You as a reader need to make sure you do your due diligence. Follow the links you see in articles. See all the things that the reporter chose to leave out.
And, weigh the evidence and facts they chose to include. In part 2 today, we'll do that.
**I want you to take note of the links on both the phrases "bulldoze" and "permanent rentership". Originally, this quote only had a link on the phrase "opponents of the new zoning rules". See screenshot 1.
When I contacted Lakewood for All, (linked to in the original or in the new quote under "permanent rentership") I was told by someone there that no one at that group said anything about bulldozing.
When I reached out to Mr. Eason by email to ask him, among other things, about this, he told me that "bulldoze" was indeed from another group. He said he updated the links. No mention was made about this update after he did it. I asked him via email about this stealth update and the Sun's policy on same. As of this writing I have not received an answer.
https://coloradosun.com/2026/04/20/colorado-democrats-shrink-single-family-home-housing-affordability-house-bill-1308-1114/
Related:
In the post above, I shared a quote where Sun reporter Mr. Eason characterized the Lakewood election as "low turnout".
While I don't think that it'll go down as a record for high turnout, the contention it was low is not quite accurate either, not quite forthright.
As you can read in the great rundown by the Lakewood Informer, turnout was actually higher for this special election than it was for the last mayoral race in some spots.
More in the link below. And if you live in Lakewood or know someone who does, and you're not signed up for the Lakewood Informer, you (or they) oughta be.
https://lakewoodinformer.com/high-turnout-but-otherwise-normal-election/
The Sun’s Eason offers a masterclass in advocacy journalism (part 2)
This is part 2 of a (perhaps inadvertant) masterclass on media editorializing by Colorado Sun reporter Brian Eason. If you haven't yet, go give part 1 a look and come back. I'll still be here.
In part 2, I will pick up where I left off and discuss the ways Mr. Eason uses studies to bolster his framing of zoning issues. In short, how one side gets their research up to the pulpit to speak and how the other doesn't. Oh, and how Mr. Eason seems to forget to tell you the reader about who is doing the research, a critical element in helping you assess what you're told.
In the previous post, I mentioned emailing Mr. Eason after seeing his article and asking whether or not (and why) he labeled the claims made by opponents of Lakewood's rezoning as "without evidence" while leaving claims by Lakewood state representative Stewart free from any tag or check.
In his response, Mr. Eason indicated that his article links to a few studies, and that he'd be happy to follow up if I had further questions. I did follow up, both to firm up my original question about Rep Stewart's claims and the connection between those and the studies he linked to. I received no answer.
I don't have time or space to go study by study for everything Mr. Eason used in his article, but I can point to some general things you as a reader should be doing when reading. By the way, I put a link to Mr. Eason's story first below (again) for convenience.
By far and away, you should not (repeat not) simply take what you're given at face value. You should follow links. You need to make sure you understand what you're getting: who did the study? What are their potential agendas? What did they measure? How applicable is what they measured to this situation? You should also actively search for opposing evidence and opinions.
These are the basics. Do not simply figure that because it's what the journalist included, it is the whole picture or unassailable evidence.**
Let me illustrate with some examples.
A study by Housing Forward Colorado is referenced in the article. Quoting with link left intact:
"According to Housing Forward Colorado, an initiative led by the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project [SWEEP], the average redevelopment project in Denver in 2024 replaced a 1,299-square-foot home with a 4,405-square-foot home. Most of those new homes sold for over $1.4 million."
Later in the article someone from SWEEP is quoted in favor of the law Mr. Eason profiles. Missing from either, however, is mention that SWEEP was a player in the effort to defeat the citizen ballot initiatives in Lakewood and almost surely a supporter of the original rezoning. The third link below is from the group Make Lakewood Livable. When you look at their sponsors, you'll see SWEEP right there big as Dallas.
Think about this. Do you suppose SWEEP or Housing Forward's agenda could color their research? Also think about why Mr. Eason would not inform you of this connection. He ought to have: knowing the connection is instrumental in your ability to properly assess the contentions made.
To help hammer home the importance of following links, let's look at another quote (put here with link intact):
"But Colorado’s zoning codes encourage just the opposite. A recent National Zoning Atlas study found that Colorado has some of the largest residential lot size requirements in the country, with many Front Range neighborhoods prohibiting homes from being built on lots smaller than 7,000 square feet."
When you follow that link at the top of the article you will see an editor's note, attached here as screenshot 1.
Interestingly, Mr. Eason seems to also be confused about lot sizes. At the bottom of the article, you'll note an editor's correction on this latter article too! Quoting:
"This story was updated at 1:37 p.m. Tuesday, April 21, to clarify the minimum lot sizes for single family homes in Lakewood."
Tracking back you see what is almost surely the parenthetical correction. Quoting again:
"(While 6,000 square feet is the smallest allowable lot in neighborhoods that only allow single-family homes, Lakewood does allow smaller lots in its R-2 zoning district. That zone allow duplexes on 10,000-square-foot lots and single family homes on lots as small as 5,000 square feet.)"
Even if you noticed Mr. Eason's mistake in the most recent article, if you don't follow the links to the evidence he offers, you would miss the correction back then--a correction that Mr. Eason for some reason left out when he used that earlier piece to bolster his framing.
The last example I want to touch on is not so much something Mr. Eason included as it is something he left out. Advocacy masquerading as journalism often does this.
You cannot depend on a reporter giving you both sides; you need to do your own due diligence. A quick google search of the phrase "what evidence is there that lot splitting doesn't make more affordable housing" brings up ample amounts of material. When you read articles, especially articles that seem to push a particular agenda, get in the habit of actively looking for contrary viewpoints and evidence.
Funny enough, after all that mention in part 1 of Mr. Eason not talking to any of the opponents of Lakewood's rezoning, I found a perfect example of how smaller lot sizes don't lead to cheaper housing ... right there on one of the group's sites.
The fourth link below is to the group Lakewood for ALL, one of the citizen groups that pushed the ballot measure to block the city council's rezoning. Screenshot 2 comes from their site (under the "Why" tab) and illustrates one big problem with the simple idea that allowing smaller lot sizes can make housing more affordable.
Developers simply build MORE of the expensive houses they were building before; without a requirement or incentive to build smaller more affordable homes, why would they if they can sell more those expensive thin-but-tall homes with rooftop patios?
I want to end with this. At the end of many Sun articles, they'll fundraise off of their work. Screenshot 3 shows the blurb that appeared on my screen at the bottom of Mr. Eason's article.
You see, nonprofit media outlets like the Sun are different. They're not influenced by billionaires like those nasty for-profit ones (a common assertion I've seen and touched on before -- see "Related" below). They shine lights and hold the powerful to account.
Except when they don't. The irony here is that, despite the Sun's grandiose claims, Mr. Eason's advocacy journalism is actually helping the powerful. It's helping the Democrat politicians justify their policy. It's helping the monied advocacy groups who support that policy and the Democrats pushing it. It's helping the city council of Lakewood.
Who it's not helping, who in fact Mr. Eason is all but directly insulting as misguided, are the citizens who push back against the powerful.
**As a quick aside, I would bet you my lunch that either Rep Stewart or one of the supporters of her bill or Lakewood's rezoning was kind enough to offer Mr. Eason all the links he could stuff into his article. I say this because I have had PR people offer it to me, and I have seen the Sun use research (and be offered suggestions on what to use) by outlets which have given them grants. For more on that as it relates to Gary Community Ventures and a childcare series, see the second link below.
https://coloradosun.com/2026/04/20/colorado-democrats-shrink-single-family-home-housing-affordability-house-bill-1308-1114/
https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/an-example-of-the-coverage-gary-community?utm_source=publication-search
https://makelakewoodlivable.com/
https://www.lakewoodforall.com/home
Related:
A recent op ed of my own showcasing nonprofit media’s obliviousness regarding their concern over the Nexstar/Tegna merger consolidating and sharing news ... all while they do exactly the same thing.