Tides Center and Wolf Reintroduction. History CO's lecture series has room for wolves, how about ranchers? Journalism's dictionary co-opted by advocates.
Tides Center and Wolf Reintroduction.
I wrote a little bit back about Tides Center, a nonprofit that wasn't as big as some in Colorado, but was important in that it let me discuss what an "incubator" is. See the first link below if you want to read or go back and refresh your memory.
In that post, I'd pulled a state TOPS expenses report (see the second link below), and had alluded to an entry or two I wanted to follow up on. I did and have the results to share.
As with much of what I find in Colorado's nonprofit ecosystem, it points to just how much our state's politics are driven by the money and influence of these monied groups.
The expense item that caught my eye was in row 2 of the spreadsheet linked second below; it was a $500 payment to Tides Center by the Department of Higher Education, division of History Colorado.
It took some doing to get at what the bill was for, but I finally got it and the copy of the paid invoice to the state is linked third below.
We paid Tides Center $500 of our money so that someone from there could come and deliver a lecture at History Colorado entitled "A Call to Restore the Grey Wolf to Colorado".
When I read that title, it hit me. In my earlier newsletter I'd pulled a TRACER report on who Tides Center was giving money to in Colorado. I recopied that screenshot (labeled "Wolf") here for convenience.
Let's recap. In Oct 2018, we paid someone from Tides Center to come here to lecture on why we should restore wolves to Colorado. Starting in July 2019 and going to Sept 2020, Tides Center donated about $315K to the Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund.
I followed up on the lecture series at History Colorado to learn more and found out that the wolf talk was part of the Rosenberry lecture series they put on. I linked to the lecture series' website fourth below.
I got curious to know if, in addition to lectures about reintroducing wolves, we got to spend our tax money on having farmers, ranchers, etc. come in to discuss the history of their way of life and its importance to the state.
Having a lecture on wolves isn't necessarily bad, I'm open to having a variety of voices in the public discourse, but there ought to be some balance, some dialog not merely one side of the issue.
I heard back from the History Colorado and, in the interest of brevity on this post, I'll add that to the follow up post after this one.
Meantime, I think I'll go rinse some of the swamp water off myself.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VQRIBkDAh8loeO86ehULhDLzxZ9WNpzb/view
https://www.historycolorado.org/rosenberry-lecture-series-history-curious
The Rosenberry Lecture series has room for wolves, but what else?
The post prior to this one was about how the Tides Center sent a speaker to give a lecture at History Colorado's Rosenberry Lecture series entitled "A Call to Restore the Grey Wolf to Colorado".**
This was a lecture we got to pay $500 for by the way.
One of the things I wondered when researching this was whether or not the Rosenberry Lecture series had speakers come in to discuss anything related to ranching, cattle, the beef industry, or agriculture in general. The other was what the process was for setting up the lectures: were these people invited, did they ask, who decides on whether to have them speak?
In answer to my questions, the media contacts at History Colorado gave the following statement (quoted from an attachment to their email response):
History Colorado offers engaging adult learning opportunities through lectures, tours, workshops, special events, and overnight trips throughout Colorado, allowing participants to explore a diverse range of historical topics. One of the highlight programs is the Rosenberry Lecture Series, an annual series that brings speakers from around Colorado and the United States, discussing various aspects of Colorado history and culture. The series has been running since the 1980sand features topics selected from current events, History Colorado’s exhibitions and publications, and emerging scholarly research. Subject matter experts are identified by History Colorado staff, and interested speakers can contact History Colorado directly for consideration. Speakers are selected based on their expertise and ability to present information in an engaging and accessible manner."
They also sent what you see in the first and second links at bottom. They are the list of speakers for the 2018-19 lecture season and a flyer advertising the lecture series respectively.
I was also sent a comprehensive list of speakers which they asked to not be made public as it contains some non-public information. I will honor this request, but I will comment on what I saw and didn't see in it. The information in this spreadsheet is public, it was conveniently located in one file, but you can find the information yourself if you would like to verify what I say or see more (check out Rosenberry's webpage linked third below).
I am not accusing the Rosenberry series of being intentionally biased, but in looking at their offerings, I cannot help but wonder if they are perhaps not being sufficiently diligent in providing both sides of an issue, in letting all the diverse voices of Colorado have a platform.
I wonder if they are allowing themselves to be pulled (or letting themselves naturally drift) in some ideological directions and not others.
This becomes apparent when you look at the list of speakers in the past 4 to 5 years. There is a decided leftward lean in the names and topics of the lectures. Looking too at the lecture seasons bracketing the 2018-19 season, I see nothing related to any of the agricultural heritage topics I allude to above. Going out another year on either side, the closest thing I could see from titles was a lecture in the 2016-17 season entitled "CO Field Guide and Changing Landscapes".
There was time for "Class Struggle in the City" (2020-21) and "Reflections on the Life of a Colorado Climate Scientist" (2017-18), however.
Most of the talks seemed interesting, and I include the ones above under that description; I'm open to and want to learn a variety of things. But that is exactly my point here. There is a startling absence of lectures by, for example, people in Ag.
That tells me a couple things. One, per History Colorado's own words above, if you are in Ag, you should be contacting them and offering to speak if you feel moved to. Participating and helping bring this state back to sanity can involve more than just speaking at legislative hearings and writing letters to the editor.
Two, History Colorado needs to do a MUCH better job at looking over their list of speakers and balancing out the topics and ideologies than they have up til now.
I don't honestly believe that they want to be a partisan organ for any particular cause or group, but this is certainly how it has shaken out on the topic of wolves and Ag. They let an advocate in, paid that person with taxpayer money, and didn't invite any contemporaneous speakers from the other side of the issue.
If they are not careful, this lack of care on their part will surely lead to advocates co-opting their lectures again.
**It's also worth noting (as you'll see in the earlier post) that Tides Center was a big contributor to wolf reintroduction here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15HVt3vYAfoblRSm4U34a6kXWcEGvwnni/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1awEwiZrlF7kyMMaDYsit1fx6yfIoSX_J/view?usp=sharing
Have journalists (assuming positive intent) not been careful enough to prevent propagandists from creeping in?
By now most people have a pretty decent handle on how advocates are using language. Language is intimately connected with thought. It's how we give expression to the concepts in our brains. Controlling language--using it as a cudgel, as a way to end argument, even in terms of a simple (and seemingly innocuous) re-labeling--is therefore a way to try and control thought. I believe the door swings both ways.
A fine enough thing for opinion writers and advocates. It's their job to persuade.
The media, by contrast, put themselves forward as brokers of information. They posit themselves as telling the stories of the world "without fear or favor" as I once had someone in public media sermonize at me after I called his reporting into question.
If challenged in this, it's not uncommon for someone in the media to tell you all about the numerous checks they have, rules and procedures they follow, and the multiple eyes a piece of work passes by.
Fair enough, but even if we allow that this process will always work as intended (which I am not saying I do--I'm merely expressing a hypothetical), what happens if the very rulebook by which they are operating is biased?
That's the subject of the podcast linked below (courtesy of a reader). Well worth a listen.
The point Ms. Attkisson makes (the host) is that journalists have, via things like the AP style handbook which sets the "proper" terms that one can use in the media, has been co-opted by advocates.
In other words the dictionary that many journalists work from is tainted. The bias is baked in.
I don't know that Ms. Attkisson and I see eye to eye on every political issue, but I do share her concern about how journalists have allowed lefty advocates to drip by drip sneak their advocacy into the very pieces and parts that they use to do their work.
I think revisiting the idea that the entirety of the media need a centralized dictionary is in order. Having it does little in my view to ensure uniformity of reporting or fairness, and it has clearly shown itself to be vulnerable to hijacking.
Related:
One of the things Ms. Attkisson mentions in her podcast above is conflating the different types of immigration and immigrants themselves.
This one had me nodding in agreement because it's something I've noticed and written about with Colorado's lefty media.
More in my op ed below.
https://completecolorado.com/2025/03/13/progressive-press-conflates-all-immigrants-in-deportation-reporting/
Thank you...
Great article this morning!!