Yes Mr. Hutchins, 9News does synthesize. Updates on Dolores Canyon.
Hutchins is right about 9News' reporting; Synthetic here is apt for both its definition and connotation.
In his media newsletter last week, journalism professor Corey Hutchins praised Kyle Clark et. al.'s recent "important" effort titled "Decision 2024: The Stakes for Colorado". See the attached screenshot from his newsletter for the full quote (the series of stories by 9News I link to first below for your reference).
He (Hutchins) referred to the project as a synthesis of information from various sources that "shows the stakes of an election" as opposed to horse-race political coverage. His word choice struck me as apt.
It's apt in the dictionary definition sense: 9News did bring together disparate sources of information to make a whole.
This isn't the only way it's apt. I'm not sure if Hutchins intended it, but the connotation of the word "synthesizes" here is also appropriate. Synthesizes, that is, carrying the savor of something opposite to natural or organic. Carrying the savor of something manufactured.
I wrote an op ed for Complete Colorado (linked second below) that examines Marshall Zelinger's contribution to this oeuvre. I will leave it to you to read the op ed and/or as many of the 9News articles as you'd like, but the allusion to manufactured news here is a pretty easy one to explain.
Throughout this series, and particularly noticeable in Zelinger's work, is an obvious attempt to try and connect Donald Trump to Project 2025.
At various points, of course, the Next team does reference Trump and the Republican platform, but a careful look (and some quick numbers using an online word counter) show where the balance is. This is more Project 2025 than Trump.
If Project 2025 is, as Hutchins puts it, "a governing blueprint" made by "Trump allies", why then is this a problem? Put simply, Project 2025 is not something Trump has endorsed or said that he would institute.
I.e. this is manufactured news. Kyle Clark himself in his inimitable way acknowledges this in the last installment (though Hutchins and Zelinger do not) with the following quote (here the link is left intact -- I will discuss after the quote):
"Trump has recently disavowed knowledge of Project 2025, a sweeping 900-page blueprint for his second term created by Trump allies, advisors and former administration officials. However, NBC News obtained a video of Trump speaking at an event, praising the Heritage Foundation in April 2022 for its work laying out a governing framework."
I would urge you before continuing to follow that link and watch the video snippet in its entirety. Note where the quote has been cut. Note what is said, and what isn't. It makes one wonder what that ellipsis is hiding. Perhaps something important, perhaps not. We can't know without a full quote.
After having noted the above, I now want you to consider that Project 2025 was not published until 2023 while this video is from 2022.**
Yes indeedy. Synthesizing.
I am concerned that one who is teaching future journalists would not note the flaws here, or at least mention them for discussion. I am also concerned that 9News would put work product like this out and call it "news".
I take Hutchins' credulousness, along with Zelinger and Clark's silence, to be quintessential examples of why the public doesn't trust media.
They're trying to show the horrors that Trump would visit upon Colorado and use only a few scattered actual policies and quotes by the man himself. They instead lean heavily on Project 2025, trying their damndest to link him to it.
What evidence for this (I mean other than putting Trump's name in articles where they detail Project 2025)? An edited clip from a year before it was published where Trump talks in general terms about the Heritage Foundation and their philosophy?
Shoddy. Tilted. Not worthy of being titled "important" nor worthy of saying it shows the "stakes of an election". What's in the can doesn't match the label and anyone outside of diehard fans of 9News and/or diehard opponents of Trump can easily see it.
One last thing to leave you with. Kyle Clark has repeatedly dodged questions about his political favoritism by saying he does have bias, but that he treats all his news subjects the same.
Hogwash.
How long do you think it will be until we get a "Stakes for Colorado" where they try to connect Biden and/or Harris to the more extreme aspects of the 30x30 project? This project being something we wouldn't need to speculate about support for in the Biden/Harris administration -- they signed the US up for that a while back.
**For fairness' sake, note that I did email Kyle Clark for clarification on this, as I emailed Zelinger AND Clark for my op ed below. In neither case did I receive a reply despite Clark's repeated claims of valuing transparency of process in his news program.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/politics/decision-2024-the-stakes-for-colorado/73-178b0535-bf31-408e-b76f-2bd50d20d53d?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2024/07/22/gaines-9news-paints-trump-with-guilt-by-association-brush/
Dolores Canyon update
I wanted to briefly touch on the Dolores Canyon controversy to share a couple new things.
The first is an op ed by a resident of the area writing in opposition to the area being declared a national monument (via executive order from the President).
The second is a CPR article detailing a proclamation issued by Mesa and Montrose counties re. how to protect the river while (presumably) meeting the needs and desires of those that live there.
I felt these were both important to share because both are give voice to the people that (at least initially) actually live there, not the NGO's* that want the President to do their bidding without input from locals.
In particular, was the following quote from the CPR article (copied with links intact):
"Meanwhile, opponents of the monument also see the NCA plan as insufficient. Sean Pond, who formed the group Halt the Dolores Monument, said he doesn’t think the area needs a monument designation or an NCA. In fact, he’s pessimistic about fending off the conservation push. 'The environmental activists that have proposed this, the proponents of the Dolores Monument, they're holding all the cards,' Pond told CPR News, noting that President Joe Biden’s America the Beautiful Initiative endeavors to conserve 30 percent of 2030. 'This falls right into his legacy and his agenda … this is the last days of his presidency. He has nothing to lose.'”
I thought the quote above was notable because, while I get it that environmentalists and NGO's that want Dolores Canyon to be protected as a monument do not like Mesa and Montrose's plan, I was a little surprised to see a local not in support.**
I have to also say that I'm not in total disagreement with Mr. Pond here.
*Nongovernmental organizations, some of which are not even centered in this state.
**Notable too frankly because it's the first mention of the 30x30 initiative in a major Colorado outlet that I'm aware of, albeit as a quote by someone and not an article.
https://rockymountainvoice.com/2024/07/tooker-why-am-i-opposed-to-the-400000-acre-proposed-dolores-river-national-monument/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1WMgJsbTWO-QmEwMUEJkIbXlVbxG_mRinnQFxJgQJ5PVPGVmZOmweHXjY_aem_bL6lkHi_YWaDEu_qVRYIPg
https://www.cpr.org/2024/07/24/mesa-montrose-counties-issue-dolores-river-proposal/