Blake misses in HB-1008 column

The headline from Peter Blake's column last Saturday asked "Can passing bad bills help GOP?" A better headline may have been, "How much misleading data can we fit into one column?"

Blake argues that HB-1008 is "a singularly cynical proposal" that Republicans may have decided to support to put "Gov. Bill Ritter in a bind once again."

The bill would make it easier for firefighters with cancer to get workers comp. So how does Blake try to make it sound like pro-union pandering? The column rests on two assumptions. The first is that HB-1008 "is roundly detested by those who would have to pay higher workers comp premiums, namely the municipalities and special districts that employ firefighters." This is a point the Rocky's editorial staff made - nearly word for word - in January, when it wrote, "HB 1008 would increase the cost of workers comp insurance purchased by the municipalities and special districts that employ firefighters."

But neither statement is accurate. In fact, statistics provided by the House Democrats cite a number of states that have passed presumptive cancer bills without impacting workers comp premiums:

• California has had "no impact" in actuarial assumptions or funding of the state's firefighter retirement system. An actuary in the system says that this legislation has had "minimal effect" on the actuarial costs to the retirement system.

• Illinois has had presumptive cancer legislation in its worker's compensation statute in place since 1984. For the first 6 years after the implementation of the statute, the City of Chicago (which employs 50% of the firefighters in the state) had an 8.3% reduction in the number of beneficiaries receiving occupational disability benefits.

• In the first 4 years after passing presumptive cancer legislation in Nevada, the state had a total of three claims. This averages to less than one claim per year for a rate of 0.02% in the state of 3,990 firefighters.

• Rhode Island had a total of 6 claims in the first 8 years after the presumptive cancer legislation was implemented in 1986. This, again, averages to less than one claim per year for the state of 5,000 firefighters.

• The state of Oklahoma had 22 claims paid in the 6 years after passing presumptive legislation, an average of 4 claims per year. The average cost per claim was $10,409 for a state of 12,420 firefighters. That is less than a dollar per year per firefighter to pay for the coverage of cancer in his/her profession statewide.

Blake's second assumption is that "[n]obody really knows what causes cancer and the only studies linking cancer to firefighting are funded by the firefighters. But HB 1008 says that most cancers afflicting firefighters after five years on the job 'shall be presumed to result' from their employment."

A press release from the House Democrats cites "studies done over the past 50 years [that] have provided evidence that supports the fact that members of the firefighting profession develop certain forms of cancer at an alarmingly higher rate than previously believed." The bill is limited to these forms of cancer - those that attack the brain, skin, digestive system, blood or genitourinary system.

It is unreasonable to place the burden of proof on a cancer victim. It is a fact that firefighters develop specific cancers at a high rate due to their exposure to various toxins. And presumptive cancer legislation has had only a minor impact in the states where it has been enacted. It seems like HB-1008 would be a hard peice of legislation for the GOP machinery to attack.

But Peter Blake has a history of leaving critical facts out of his columns. (For instance, Colorado Media Matters called him out for a column that "pointed to two of Colorado political consultant Dick Wadhams' campaign successes without acknowledging -- aside from a passing mention of comparisons between Wadhams and Karl Rove -- the negative campaign tactics Wadhams has used to achieve those successes.") But ignoring data in order to portray a good bill as a giveaway to the firefighter's union? He's really gone too far.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

Colorado Media Matters on Post, Ritter

Colorado Media Matters examines the Post's recent coverage of the governor and sees many of the same problems I did.

Denver Post up for a Pulitzer for blizzard coverage

Editor and Publisher via Coyote Gulch. Congratulations to the Post staff!

In defense of a governor who shouldn't need defending

Governor Bill Ritter is arguably the most powerful person in Colorado. His election in November was just short of a landslide. And in the two months since his inaugural, he has helped calm the Amendment 41 debate, directed aid to Colorado's blizzard ravaged southeast counties, recommended full funding for the new science and engineering complex at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, indicated he will approve major renewable energy legislation, saved the state a reported $1.6 million on prescription pharmaceuticals...

I could go on like this for quite awhile.

But a casual observer of Colorado politics might get the impression that Ritter is a governor under siege, taking heavy fire from all sides. Today the Post's Tom McGhee reported that Ritter is attempting to win back labor's trust after his veto of HB-1072. The Rocky's Berny Morson wrote that Ritter is considering vetoing two education bills, one carried by a Republican and one carried by a Democrat. And the Post's Jeri Clausing reported that "in just two months in office, Gov. Bill Ritter has emerged on the opposite side of candidate Bill Ritter on two key issues, raising questions of credibility and the reality of carrying out his sweeping Colorado Promise."

The last statement is especially disingenuous. Nether of the issues Ritter allegedly flip-flopped on - HB-1072 and the allocation of federal mineral lease dollars - was even part of the Colorado Promise, a document the Ritter for Governor campaign released in September of 2006. At the time, I wrote that, "The comprehensive 52-page policy book takes on every issue facing Colorado, from healthcare to the economy to the environment to illegal immigration." On February 11, 2007, I reread the document and realized that'd I'd been wrong. Themes like "energy" or "education" were mentioned far more than issues like, say, union voting procedures.

It's true that some of the voters who cast their ballots for Bill Ritter were voting against his Republican opponent or for pet issues. But I believe most voters chose Ritter because they wanted major, 21st Century reforms for our state's healthcare, transportation, education and clean energy systems.

In other words, voters want the Colorado Promise.

There is no excuse for breaking a campaign pledge. But the two flip-flops alleged in the Post are less serious than Clausing makes them out to be. The first is that Ritter's veto of HB-1072 contradicted earlier statements to labor groups; I discussed that situation on February 9, 2007. The second is that using increases "in federal mineral lease money to shore up the state's failing education fund" would violate Ritter's pledge to "give priority to energy-impacted areas for severance tax and federal mineral lease moneys." Even those alleging this change of heart state that they haven't seen Ritter's plan yet, which makes the whole thing sound like preemptive politicking.

In politics, the perception of smoke can create a very real fire. But there's not even smoke here. Just a lot of hot air.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

Trustworthy media emerges in Colorado

The mainstream media won't report the truth about Colorado GOP chair Dick Wadhams. And it's "rigged" against Democrats. But there is hope. The Craig Daily Press reports that Colorado Confidential has earned Colorado Press Association credentials.

Staying positive through clenched teeth

I'm not going to violate the spirit of Coloradolib's 2nd All Positive, All The Time Week. But the Rocky really blew it this morning. I melted down at SquareState.

Memo to the Rocky: What?

The Saturday Rocky Mountain News contains this head-scratcher:

[Democratic Congressman Mark Udall is] a longtime war critic whose vote [against escalation] won't raise eyebrows in his liberal-leaning district. But he's also pondering a U.S. Senate race in 2008, when he would need votes statewide. Several observers said Udall has to tread carefully and make sure he doesn't get dragged too far to the left in coming months...

The most recent poll I could find shows that 63% of Americans are against the escalation and 56% believe that the war is "hopeless." In the words of Molly Ivins, "That is the center, you fools." Not many find anti-Iraq War votes leftist anymore.

Colorado Confidential wins awards for journalistic excellence

The Colorado Society for Professional Journalists confirms what we already know. Congratulations, CoCo.

Three strikes and I'm boring

This is the third time I've done a long interview with a Post or Rocky reporter without getting any quotes in the paper. Worth the read anyway, though.

UPDATE: SquareState reports that the Post's editor "demanded defunct righty blogs be listed, even after [the reporter] pointed out their lack of activity."

UPDATE: The Post's reporter told me that her story included a sidebar with a link to Coloradolib. Her editor deleted the link in favor of links to the aforementioned rightwing blogs. Hm, wonder why.

More Tancredo-worship from the Rocky

Media Matters lets 'em have it.

HB-1072 watch

So much bother! But with the mainstream media still spreading rightwing misinformation, who knows what the governor will do.

Denver media [heart] Republicans

The mainstream media continues to give the GOP a hall pass. From the Rocky:

Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., agreed to co-sponsor a bill that seems to be pointed at a past controversy involving campaign payments to the wife of former GOP congressman Scott McInnis, a potential rival.

That prompted a McInnis spokeswoman to jab back, mentioning that Udall's wife is a Capitol Hill lobbyist for environmentalists...

McInnis drew media scrutiny and complaints from Democrats when his campaign continued to pay his wife thousands of dollars per month to work as campaign manager even after he announced his intention to leave Congress.

Let's see here. McInnis may have obeyed the letter of the law, but he certainly violated its spirit. Meanwhile, Udall is married to someone who lobbies for environmental causes. It is dishonest and misleading to equate these two things, to write them off as tit-for-tat political bickering.

It reminds me of the Medina ad scandal, during which the media consistently balanced reports on the Beauprez campaign's alleged lawbreaking with reports on Ritter's decision to plea bargain immigrants.

It's on-the-one-handism gone into overdrive. Hopefully the voters can see through it.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

Papers spread conservative misinformation about HB-1072

Colorado Media Matters finds the papers' coverage of the Colorado Labor Peace Act lacking.

Diana DeGette teaser post

I just returned from a media luncheon with Diana DeGette. Also in attendance, johne and TakeBackTheHouse from SquareState (which is inconveniently down right now); the intrepid Erin from Colorado Confidential (shown taking notes in this photo); and writers from various media outlets including NPR, La Voz, Clear Channel, The Denver Business Journal, and The Colorado Statesman. I'm going to do a write-up tonight. Stay tuned.

The Rocky adores Tom Tancredo

Explain how a dispute between Senator Ken Salazar and Congressman Tom Tancredo justifies the Rocky headline, "Colorado senators clash over Spanish speech." Um, did we elect a Senator Tancredo at some point?

I'm sure the Rocky will fix the headline shortly. At least, I sincerely hope they will.

Salazar delivered a speech in English and Spanish. Tancredo got whiny. That's the extent of the argument. And it exposes three critical facts:

1. Salazar has more courage than I sometimes give him credit for.

2. Tancredo's problem is not with illegal immigration. It's with what he sees as the dillution of a white, Judeo-Christian heritage. As Luis wrote at Square State, "Ah, but Tancredo is only opposed to the 'illegal' aspect of immigration -- it has nothing to do with having a problem with Latino culture. Riiiiiiiight."

3. The Denver papers love Tom Tancredo. Truly, madly, deeply. And nauseatingly.

There's more at Daily Kos.

The award for Saturday's most misleading post, part two

Apparently attempting to outdo itself, the conservative blog The Outlander lied twice in one day:

Bill "Slick Willie" Ritter undertook what he promoted as a whistle-stop tour of the state today. How much did that cost the Colorado tayxpayer? The objective news media did not ask, and they probably will not do so. But had this been a Republican they would have demanded the original receipts for all expenses incurred.

In 10 seconds of Googling, I found stories in the Rocky and 9news.com reporting that the total cost of inauguration activities - including the whistle-stop train tour - will be $750,000, financed primarily by ticketholders and corporate sponsors, not taxpayers.

Tancredo's bid hinges on Allard's?

The Tancredo campaign announcement I wrote about last night has been downgraded from imminent to contingent. As in, Tancredo is running for President if he can't run for Senate. From the Post:

In addition to evaluating Iowa, Tancredo is also waiting to see whether Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., decides to run for re-election in 2008, [Tancredo spokesperson Carlos Espinosa said. Tancredo has said he's interested in that statewide office.

The problem is that no one seems to know what Allard's thinking. Different story, same paper:

Sen. Wayne Allard has made up his mind about whether he will seek a third term in 2008, but he's keeping his decision secret a bit longer. Only Allard and his wife know his plans, press secretary Steve Wymer said Friday, confirming a report posted Thursday on Congressional Quarterly's website, CQPolitics.com. Allard has not said when he will announce his choice.

Tancredo and Allard are both extremely beatable opponents for probable Democratic nominee Mark Udall. But they have different weaknesses. Allard is so boring he's known in DC as Senator Dullard. Tancredo has the opposite problem; he's so not-boring he'll probably shoot himself in the foot at some point.

Tancredo can count on one thing. The fawning support of the mainstream media, which in Colorado includes the major dailies. Today's Colorado Media Matters reports that the Post is already giving Tancredo the benefit of their bias:

In a January 12 online article about U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo's (R-CO) interest in a possible presidential run, The Denver Post uncritically reported Tancredo spokesman Carlos Espinosa's claim that U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "is not a very popular guy in Iowa." In fact, according to a December poll commissioned by Des Moines, Iowa, CBS television affiliate KCCI, Iowa voters rank McCain the most popular potential Republican presidential candidate among 11 contenders.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

Republicans, AP get out the knives for Ritter

Yesterday's Gazette ran an Associated Press article that pretty much sums up the Colorado GOP's stance on teamwork:

"I am representing the loyal opposition. However, it's a little difficult to figure out what we're supposed to be against, listening to the governor-elect's agenda, which we didn't hear," [Republican representative Mike] May said.

Just tell us what you're for, and we'll be against it. Merry Christmas, eh?

The whole tone of the article seems anti-Ritter to me. But I'm obviously biased. However, it's worth noting that this specific AP reporter has regurgitated rightwing spin before. (See examples here and here.)

Death threats and the mainstream media

Tom Tancredo allegedly gets a death threat and CNN goes beserk. But when Democratic Rep. Terrance Carroll got death threats, the media tripped over itself to report both sides of the story. And when Bill Winter got death threats, you didn't hear a peep.

According to media, election coverage swell

I got the press release from Bill Ritter spokesperson Evan Dreyer at 11:40 this morning:

Gov.-elect Bill Ritter today announced a full line-up of inaugural festivities that will kick off with a Jan. 9 swearing-in ceremony at the Capitol and conclude with a statewide plane tour. A dinner, concert and whistle-stop train tour also will round out the celebration.

The release landed in my inbox as I was putting on my jacket to head to a Colorado Media Matters panel discussion that featured Dreyer and his opposite number from the Bob Beauprez campaign, John Marshall. For a moment, I imagined the release I would've gotten had Both Ways Bob won the election:

Gov.-elect Bob Beauprez today announced a full line-up of inaugural festivities that will kick off with a Jan. 9 swearing-in ceremony at the Capitol. Or maybe it'll be at the Olive Garden. Or the governor's mansion. No wait, the Capitol. On the 9th. Or maybe the 10th.

I shuddered, switched off my computer, and headed out the door.

So, like, you people are real journalists, huh?

In addition to Dreyer and Marshall, the panel included newsmen Adam Schrager, Greg Moore, John Temple and Jeff Thomas, and Colorado University's Elizabeth Skewes.

I felt a bit out of place. Most of the people in the audience were journalists (like Colorado Confidential blogger Wendy Norris) or politicians (like State Senator Ken Gordon). Coloradolib provides coverage of debates, rallies and protests, along with unlimited amounts of snark. But it's not really the place you go for investigative reporting.

Nonetheless, I had a question I was dying to ask the media figures in attendance. "Why did you keep breathing life into Bob Beauprez's ethically bankrupt and politically floundering campaign?" Or, as I phrased the question in my notebook:

In your coverage of the Medina ad scandal, you consistently balanced stories about Beauprez's alleged crime with stories about Ritter's questionable judgement when it came to offering plea bargains. How could you possibly equate those two things?

I never got a chance to ask my question.

But the whole thing was darn interesting anyway.

It was clear from the outset that Marshall was bitter about Beauprez's defeat, but he went out of his way to say the media wasn't to blame. Dreyer felt the media was too hard on Ritter at times, but as the winner he could afford to be magnanimous.

The most interesting exchange came when Skewes took traditional media to task for using the web as a dumping ground for information it didn't have the space to run. Temple denied the charges and said traditional media is using the web because readers are demanding it.

And despite what my too-clever headline would lead you to believe, the journalists were open about some of their own failings. For instance, Schrager revealed that his Truth Tests were so popular, 9 News occasionally made room for them by shelving other political reporting, in essence dubbing the advertising the biggest story of the election.

And while much of the conversation revolved around the role of the Internet, the panel didn't feature a single Internet-based reporter.

So is the media biased or not?

Towards the end, someone asked the panel whether the media had traded objectivity for bipartisanship. All of the journalists denied it. But as Schrager said, "Everybody looks through their own prism and sees what they want to see."

The mainstream media's bias is for balance, whether that balance paints a truthful picture or not. And that's why, when Marshall admitted the left did a better job of blogging the election, I had to shrug my shoulders. It was easier for us, because the mainstream media wasn't telling the whole truth about Beauprez. That gave us something to write about.

That's one of the many reasons why on January 9, we'll welcome Governor Bill Ritter, instead of Governor Both Ways Bob.

Photo of Dreyer and Marshall courtesy of my handy-dandy camera phone. Video of the panel will be available here at some point. Thank you to Colorado Media Matters for putting together the panel. And a special thanks to Marshall for participating in a Media Matters-sponsored event.

Bob "I'm Going To The Pokey" Beauprez still getting media favoritism

I've written that the mainstream media seems "determined to get Beauprez back into governor's race" and is "trying to give Beauprez a break." But anointing him the default choice for governor? Shameless. How much more rightwing bias will they throw at the voters between now and election day? And how would they expect Beauprez to govern from behind bars?