Colorado Media Matters Critiques Tax Freeze

December 15th, 2007

Colorado Media Matters pointed out various omissions in the coverage of the Independent Institute’s lawsuit opposing the Colorado state law freezing property tax rates in most of the state.

Colorado Media Matters noted that the Denver Post reported important facts that were left out by some other outlets. Colorado Media Matters noted:

“The Post reported hat the rate freeze is applicable only in the 175 (of 178) Colorado school districts that voted to waive restrictions on retaining and spending revenues mandated by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) provisions of the Colorado Constitution. The Post also reported that under the law, 34 districts will see lower mill levies and 38 others will see no change”

Reporters should be careful to note that property taxes will NOT go up everywhere in Colorado, as a result of the tax-rate freeze.

They should also note, whenever they report on partisan squabbling about the tax-rate freeze, that Republicans in the Colorado Senate passed a similar tax-rate freeze in 2004.

Caldara’s Tax-Freeze Joke

December 14th, 2007

For months, I’ve been bugging Jon Caldara to tell me when he was going to file his lawsuit challenging this year’s new law freezing the tax rate in most counties.

 

The law was passed to help straighten out Colorado’s state budget mess.

Caldara’s been threatening to file a lawsuit for months, milking media coverage along the way.

 

On Wed., I emailed him:

 

Hi Jon …• The end of the year is upon us, and I still don’t see a lawsuit filed by you regarding the tax-rate freeze. Have you changed your plans on this? If not, what’s up? As always, thanks for your reply, Jason

He replied with this on Thursday: “We decided not to file.”

Of course, this was just hours after he announced that his lawsuit was finally filed, so this was Caldara’s attempt at a joke.

My about-to-be-former colleague Matt Poundstone suggested that Caldara needs a nickname, ideally related to his over-exposure in the Colorado media. So we came up with these:

Jon “Interview Me” Caldara

Jon “I AM COLORADO AND SO CAN YOU” Caldara   

Jon “Big PR” Caldara

Media Jon 

Jon “thinks-he’s-a-comedian” Caldara  Jon “I-should’ve-been…•a-comedian” Caldara Jon “Failed Cartoonist” Caldara  Fading Comedian Jon  Jon “B-grade Comedian” Caldara  

Jon “Comedian” Caldara

 

And then I collected these from other friends:

Jon “Windex Forehead” Caldara

Jon “Doug Bruce With A Goatee” Caldara

Jon “Toll Troll” Caldara

Jon “I Frighten Children” Caldara

Jon “The Dildo” Caldara (historical reference)

Baldara

Asshat

 

I asked Caldara what he thought of some of these nicknames, and he emailed his favorite: “failed comedian, successful adult film star Jon Caldara”  If you’ve got ideas, let me know.

Post made right call on photo

December 12th, 2007

I’m sympathetic to the folks who think the photos of killers like Matthew Murray, who gunned down Colorado church goers Sunday, should not appear in the news.

But if you follow this logic, you could argue against showing the images of all kinds of criminals, for fear that making them celebrities will encourage copy cat crimes.

Not only would this not be in the public interest, because the people want to see these images and it’s important for the public to see them, but it wouldn’t be effective.

Photos and information about mass murderers will leak out anyway. In fact, you could argue that trying to hide information and imagery about a killer may encourage copy cat murders as much or more as highlighting the information would.

I’m not saying journalists should throw every photo of a typical gang member on the front page, but a photo of a mass murderer like Matthew Murray should go on the front page, absolutely.

So, the Denver Post made the right call today in running Murray’s photo on page 1. The Post Managing Editor Gary Clark emailed me the following in response to my question about The Post’s decision:

We ran Mathew Murray’s photo because, generally, readers are interested in seeing a photo of a person who is the center of a major story. It’s news. And this was not a Seung-Hui Cho-style, gun-brandishing self-portrait. It was a five-year-old photo provided by an acquaintance. In addition, the photo complimented the quotation on page one attributed to Murray.”

The Post made the right call. The Rocky, which ran Murray’s photo in the interior of the newspaper, made the wrong decision.

 

Interview with Chronicle’s Bronstein

December 7th, 2007

For my Sat. Rocky column, I interviewed San Francisco Chronicle editor Phil Bronstein. To me, what he’s trying to do in San Francisco makes a lot of sense. Here’s a transcript of part of my interview with him.

JS: I’ve read that you want to find ways for readers to act instead of just saying things are bad. What does this mean?

PB: It can mean a variety of things, but we snagged this mission from the original William Randolph Hearst, who despite an interesting and colorful reputation, was for a long time a champion of the working man and women. His newspapers took on trusts. They did a lot of things. And he’s not always remembered for that.

And he had a thing called, journalism of action. And of course his action was probably far grander than anything we have in mind. As someone said about it, and I don’t think he said this, but newspapers at the time injected themselves routinely and conspicuously to correct the ills of public life.

Now we have a slightly different view. The model we have is called Chronicle Watch. Chronicle Watch we started some years ago. It’s on the front of the local Bay Area section every day. And it’s not a column, and it’s not a consumer advocate, or a consumer hotline or advocacy. It basically solicits from readers problems from readers that should be getting fixed primarily by public officials. So it’s not Chronicle Watch to End the War in Iraq. But it’s Chronicle Watch about potholes, it’s about the electrical wiring in public school classrooms that doesn’t work, it’s about bridges that are broken and unsafe. So they [readers] send us a note about it, and we check it out. And we run a thumbnail of the problem and a brief description. And we run a photo of the public official whose job it is to fix it, and we run all their contact information. And we run it every day until they fix it. And this has been going for five or six years. It’s success rate is in the 90th percentile. So it’s a pass through. It’s not, we’ll go out an fix it for you. No question, there’s a lot of leverage in putting a photo in the paper each day next to a problem their paid to fix and they’re not fixing. But basically it really is people feeling like even if it’s not their street that they can do something about it. We are providing them the information and the avenue to do that. And obviously some encouragement to do that if you got that information.

And so this, on a small level, is what we have with this journalism of action.

You provide people with all the information they need to do something. No just here, ok are the facts. Or here’s a problem, and that’s it. That’s our job. We’ve provided the information. See ya. Good night. Have a good day. Good luck. Instead, you know we will offer them opportunities to do something about it. Whether it’s something that’s been standard in newspapers for a long time…-help boxes or which congressperson to call, that sort of thing.

We’re doing that, but more than that, it’s in the stories you choose.

So for instance, the mayor of San Francisco says he’s going to improve the homelessness problem. It’s a huge issue in the last several elections. We go out to Golden Gate Park, actually on another story, and our columnist-goes out there…-he was actually looking for coyotes because there was a coyote problem out there…-and instead he finds giant encampments of homeless people, and once more, you know, there are homeless people who have all sorts of problems and issues. There are hypodermic needles all over the place. One kid, in fact, gets stuck in the butt sliding down a public park slide. And he writes about it and provides people the opportunity, you know, if you want to complain about this. We make the maximum use of all the digital possibilities. There stories are on our website and you get comments, and you take from the comments, we reverse publish some of the better comments. In those comments people can have ideas for solutions. We provide the opportunity for those people to express themselves, for other people to then participate if they want to. Immediately the mayor sent people out there to try to deal with this problem. And we kept sending Chuck out there and other reporters out there and sweep the place, map it for the website, where the homeless encampments in Golden Gate park are, where they are moving, are they doing anything that’s valuable or helpful with the folks they are moving. What about social services?

Another example. They had a trash strike in Oakland. One would think that’s pretty limited to Oakland. If you are not or are not having your trash picked up in Oakland. But, you know, the trash company said despite the strike, everyone’s trash is being picked up by management and replacement workers. We went out as reporters to see if this was true. Not only was it not true, but the places they were picking up happened to be the wealthy neighborhoods and the not picking up happened to be the nonwealthy neighborhoods. So we covered that like it was the giant oil spill we just had, and we had a trash watch, and we put the picture of the guy who’s the head of the trash company and his contact information as part of the Oakland trash strike package. It’s hard to say whether we had any role whatsoever in the resolution of the Oakland trash strike, but no question people got to express themselves and they did, including a lot of people who didn’t live in Oakland but were plugged into the story in a more profound way than if you were just reading it in passing.

These are the kinds of things where you actually give information on about how people can participate in a resolution if they want to. The Bay Area has the highest volunteer rate of, I think, anywhere in the country. So when we had the oil spill, the head of the Coast Guard came to San Francisco, and we had an ed board meeting with him, and he said, “I was frankly kind of shocked, but I guess I shouldn’t have been at the number of people who showed up to help.” And there were a thousand people who showed up the first day saying what can we do. And a lot of them were turned away, so we tackled that, too. What can you do and why were people being turned away, and how can that be fixed?

You just leverage people’s desire to participate in their own lives in the paper and online.

And the third example I’ll give you is a guy fell off Half Dome. Half Dome is a very popular climbing place. Most people didn’t realize, the last part of this climb is a vertical climb, and there are two cables that go up, and there’s a line, it’s like a line for a popular movie, around the block. So this guy falls off. And we have an outdoors writer, Tom Stienstra, very well known, writes a lot of books about the outdoors, he writes about it. And he got hundreds and hundreds of comments on his blog-among the comments were people who claimed to be eye witnesses to this guy falling off. So what you do is go and verify, if you can, that they were there, that they saw this-and in the same set of comments are a set of descriptions of why this is a dangerous situation and how it can be fixed-You turn this into, what can you do and how can the public participate in the solution.

That’s the kind of thing, and as I say, it varies on how you do it and what the tools are. You can go from a help box to the whole way the story is reported or follow-up story is reported-.

People can do a lot more, obviously, than a lot of people think they can.

JS: On the online comments, do you actually solicit solutions in the comments, like solution comments, or do they just naturally come as part of the comments on the story?

PB: So far, they just naturally come but I think that’s probably a great idea. I don’t know what form that would take but I do think that we ought to consider, and we’ve talked about, how to specifically solicit solutions.

And you know, this is controversial. People, you know, have accused us of advocacy journalism. That’s not what we do.

We sort of snagged the William Randolph Hearst line because it’s not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s one that journalism has gotten away from in the last number of decades-

The idea is not to direct people to do anything. We’re not telling people what to do. We’re saying, if you want to do something about this, here are all the places you can go, here’s what you can do. We don’t say, do this. More like, if you want to do something, here are some options-.

We started about two and a half months ago. Doing this systematically is new-

I just heard from too many people, you know, readers or former readers, who said, if you want to tell me what’s wrong, I can turn on the TV 24 hours a day. I can find out what’s wrong. I just want to find out what to do about it.

 

 

 

 

Why was Gunny Bob’s new book cancelled?

December 3rd, 2007

You have to wonder what Cumberland Press was thinking when it agreed to publish a book by KOA talk show host Gunny Bob.

You wouldn’t expect much brilliance or originality. You wouldn’t anticipate humor or subtlety. Your expectations, honestly, would have to be pretty low.

In fact, based on, if anything, too much evidence meticulously provided by Colorado Media Matters here, you’d have to be prepared to receive a manuscript full of falsehoods and ugly insults.

So why in the world did Cumberland reject Gunny’s manuscript, as reported by Colorado Media Matters?

What could possibly have made Cumberland change its mind?

I called Cumberland Press Friday, but the Publisher didn’t have five minutes to tell me what happened between him and Gunny. But he did discuss the issue with his underling, who sent me a written statement by Publisher Ronald Pitkin:

“Cumberland decided to cancel Bob Newman’s War in America this year because in our judgment the manuscript we received varied significantly from the thrust of the proposal upon which the contract we offered was based. We didn’t think the manuscript offered enough new insights to make it a saleable book, and so we decided to cancel it.”

This position is very strange given that Gunny’s book was already listed in Cumberland’s promotional materials. And, you have to wonder, again, what Cumberland could possibly have been expecting to receive from Gunny in the way of “new insights.”

Did Cumberland’s rejection of Gunny have anything to do with the fact that Gunny was discussing his new book when he stated that “every Muslim immigrant to America who holds a green card, a visa, or who is a naturalized citizen [should] be required by law to wear a GPS tracking bracelet at all times.”

Did it have anything to do with the falsehoods and distortions that Colorado Media Matters is constantly finding in his radio show–and the ones it found in his previous book?

Did the cancellation have anything to do with the campaign by Denver activist groups to pressure businesses to pull ads from Gunny’s radio show?

I’m still trying to reach Gunny and Cumberland to ask these questions.

Dean Singleton’s job offer to Gil Spencer

November 30th, 2007

I was finishing up an interview on Nov. 6 with Gil Spencer, who was editor of The Denver Post from 1989-1983, when, unasked, Spencer explained how he came to be hired by Dean Singleton, owner of The Denver Post and Media News. He said:

I had left the New York Daily News and Dean called me and asked me if I would talk to him about coming out there. I said, “Where?” He said, “Denver.” I said, “Where’s Denver and do they have a race track?”

 

And so, he was coming to New York and I was to meet him in a bar. I had never met him, never seen him, and this child walks in, who looks like Peter Pan. Jesus Christ, this is the owner of this newspaper, and we talked for about 10 minutes, and I knew I was talking to a grownup.

And so then it got serious and he said, ok, I’ll tell you what, I’ll offer you 150 grand and you’ll get bonuses and goodies. And I said, “Forget it. I want 175 and I don’t want any bonuses or any of that.” I could hear his mind going around because I figured that some of his top people, in advertising and such, weren’t getting quite that much money.

And he said, “All right.” And I said, “We’re not done.” I said, “My wife had to give up her car when we came to New York. And if we’re coming to Denver, she wants a jeep. And it’s gotta be red, and you gotta pay for it.” That’s a true story. We got there and there was the Jeep. I love him for that. We had a good trip there. We had a lot of fun. The Rocky Mountain News was giving us a lot of trouble. As a matter of fact, we were ahead of the News at that point.”

PR conference for progressives

October 31st, 2007

Here’s info about a conference I’m organizing Jan 31 – Feb. 1, 2008:

A National Conference on Media Relations for Progressives

True Spin Conference, Jan. 31 …• Feb. 1, 2008, Denver, CO

Join some of America’s best progressive PR practitioners for two days of panels, workshops, networking, and fun.

This conference brings together flacks from progressive advocacy groups around the country to exchange ideas and learn new and creative PR tactics.
Officials from giant corporations meet all the time to share their latest and greatest media relations strategies. This is our turn. It’s the only national conference of its kind.

Keynote Speakers:

Lori Dorfman, Berkeley Media Studies Group;
Alan Jenkins, The Opportunity Agenda;
David Sirota, Author, Hostile Takeover;

Other Faculty:

Medea Benjamin, Code Pink;
Andy Bichlbaum, Yes Men!;
Kathy Bonk and Emily Tynes, Authors, Strategic Communications for Nonprofits;
Beach Codevilla, Spitfire Strategies;
Martin Kearns, Green Media Toolshed;
Robert Perez, Fenton Communications;
Rashad Robinson, GLAAD;
Heath Wickline, SPIN Project.
 

Read more about these folks and other faculty here.

 

The last True Spin Conference was held in 2006 and sold out. We had about 200 registrants from around the country, including PR people from all types of progressive organizations. Click here to read more about the 2006 event.

To register, visit our website.

Session topics include:
 

  • How to Work with Hollywood;
  • How to Deal with EDs who Just Don’t Get it;
  • YouTube: Show and Tell;
  • Strategic Media Planning;
  • Be like GLAAD;
  • New Communications Technologies;
  • Theatrical Protest: A Case Study in Pink;
  • How to Collaborate with the Netroots and Bloggers;
  • Connecting PR to Fundraising;
  • See preliminary program here http://www.truespinconference.com/program.html

 

 

www.truespinconference.com
 

Rockies, Christianity, and “character”

October 27th, 2007

Rockies general manager Dan O’Dowd told a Denver talk show that he’s got a 14-point litmus test to determine whether potential Rockies players are of good enough “character” to join the team.

This deserves more scrutiny, as explained here, especially given the prominence of Christianity among the Rockies players, management, and owners, as reported, for example, here and here.

O’Dowd says a “byproduct” of his litmus test for “character” is “faith.” I think O’Dowd was referring to religious faith as opposed to faith in humanity or something nonreligious, but he may not have been. If he was referring to religious faith, would athiests lose points in O’Dowd’s 14-point method to evaluate “character?” Would gays? Would other sinners, as defined by various religions, be frowned upon by the Rockies?

In any case, are political beliefs on O’Dowd’s list? What behaviors or beliefs would exclude a good person from the Rockies team?

Here’s a partial transcript of the inteview with O’Dowd, Vice President and General Manager of the Colorado Rockies, Oct. 17, 2007 on KHOW, 630 AM in Denver, on the Caplis and Silverman Show.

 

Dan O’Dowd: Honestly, I think that the thing I’m most proud of is the fact that the model that was followed here is a model that can transcend many organizations and actually many people in how they go about leading their lives. I think that the players that we have are made up of the right stuff. But I do think that was a focus that started here many years ago. It’s just now coming to fruition.

 

Dan Caplis: Well that’s right, and when you look at the Colorado Rockies website, even in the official biography of Dan O’Dowd, it says, quote, …A key component in that process,’ this system that Dan’s referring to, …is finding players who possess character both on and off the field.” And Dan when you took the stage the other night out behind second base at Coors Field and it was your turn on national TV to talk about your team, you zeroed in on just that.

 

Dan O’Dowd: Well, for me character is symbolic of many of the qualities that we’ve tried to develop up here in this organization. But it really centers on the heart. The heart is the determination of how you live your life day in and day out, what your value system is, how you treat people, you know, how selfish you are, and how you go about making a difference in the world. We try to focus on players, certainly. We want to focus on players that have ability. But really the character issue gets directly to their attitude, how the approach life. And again, I think the thing we are all most proud of here is the fact that we have a group of players who look at life they way they should look at it.

 

-.

 

Dan Caplis:  So impressive Dan. I’m sure folks are driving down street, whatever they do for a living, and thinking, okay, how do I apply this to my life, to my business, that sort of thing. Give us some of the nuts and bolts, say whether it’s Tulowitzky or a Matt Holliday.

 

Dan O’Dowd: I think we started with the basic philosophy here when we realized the position we were in, which was not a good position. One, I think we dealt with the reality of it. We didn’t deny it internally. And we tried to create then a system for how we were going to approach it. You know, quite honestly, it started with a system of basic communication, trying to develop the best communication model we possibly could so at least we could communicate with each other day in and day out-.

 

And then I think, as this unfolded, we realized that could not focus on results. We had to stay within the process of day in and day out, meaning that we had to create a system through scouting and development where every day we would focus on other aspects to create something positive going on in the organization.

 

And then finally, as a byproduct of that, we realized talent that didn’t match with character was a completely empty approach for us. So we began, from an evaluation standpoint, trying to develop, which we did, 14 points, of trying to measure character. And I’m not going to get into that, because I think it’s a competitive advantage, but it was a way for us to try define those players within our system or before we even drafted them or we acquired them or we found them in Latin America, those particular players that would answer as many of those 14 points as we could possibly find. Now the by product of that has been faith, humility, accountability, trust, integrity, patience. There’s been an incredible amount of by product to all those things which I think makes our organization, in my mind, right now special.
 

Now the true test will be if we can maintain this over a long period of time. But I think if we don’t bet away from the basics of what we created here we should be fine.

 

-.

 

Dan O’Dowd: I don’t think any of that is coincidence, nor do I think the things that are happening now. I I do think we’re being honored. But I do think we are being honored because when you follow a set of principles and stick with them and don’t compromise your values as it relates to what you’re trying to accomplish, I think good things happen.

 

 

 

ROX vs. FOX Continued

October 23rd, 2007

Posted by Matt Poundstone 

A short side note in Jason’s last column urged people who might own Fox News hats to do like his father and take a marker to the FOX logo,  turning the …F’ to an …R’ and spelling out …Rox News’ in support of our World Series-bound Rockies.

This suggestion is sound advice for free-media loving Americans and baseball fans alike.  But it also begs the question:  Who out there would actually wear a Fox News hat?

For inquiring minds that want to know, here’s what a quick Internet search revealed.

First of all, the phrase “Fox News hat” yields few instructive results on Google.  The same thing goes for “sporting” and “wearing a/his/her Fox News hat.”  It doesn’t help a Google search when the word …hat’ appears frequently in the blogosphere vernacular.

But overall, the web reveals some limited utility in wearing a Fox hat, ranging from the provocative to the absurd.

If, for example, you are trying to annoy Hollywood anti-war activists like Sean Penn and Tim Robbins, walk up to them with a microphone and a Fox News cap and ask whether they want America to succeed in Iraq.  The hat turns out to be the cherry that gets extra press for a guerrilla interview.

If you’re an outspoken member of the alleged liberal media elite, the cap can also be hip and ironic.  At the memorial for journalist Molly Ivins, a slide show featured a photo of her in a Fox News hat.  The sight drew roaring laughter from the audience.

Finally, from the Random Celebrity Sighting files:  a man in a Fox News hat appears at a paintball adventure with none other than William “James Tiberius Kirk” Shatner.  The man in the photo is listed as Col. David Hunt, who is (you guessed it) a Fox News contributor.

So, if you’re in the mood to agitate the left or engage in simulated combat with a TV celeb, a Fox News cap might be for you.

For the rest of us, there will always be the …Rox News’ alternative…-or the often wise example of Molly Ivins to treat the whole enterprise as a joke.

Tax-freeze lawsuit to be filed by end of the month

October 9th, 2007

I emailed Jon Caldara yesterday.

Hi Jon …•

You’re milking your threat of a tax-freeze lawsuit into significant media coverage. That’s a good PR tactic for you, but it’s bad for people like me who have better things to read about in the newspaper. For my blog or column, do you still plan to file a lawsuit? If so, when? By year’s end? Or after? Or have you already filed it?

As usual, he responded quickly:

The law suit (sic) is a go.  I expect it to be officially filed by the end of the month, unless I want to milk it some more 😉

Jon 

Now, I want to know if Caldara is buying a suit to wear to law school? Or was he referring to the the lawsuit he’s been threatening to file?