For those following the travails of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, you are seeing first hand the power of the press to drop haymakers on a politician who blows it. For those following UdallGate, you are seeing firsthand the shrewdness with which the mainstream press can cover for one of their favorite elected officials.
At the top, everyone should just concede that The Denver Post has become little more than a farm team for liberal politicians and liberal non-profits in Colorado. Noticeably, The Post‘s front door has become a revolving door into cushy Democratic operative jobs. If you doubt us, just wait until the next group of reporters bolts to help elect a Democrat, raise our taxes, or something comparable. It will happen again. Just wait.
This is why it shouldn’t be a surprise that The Post‘s power brokers would attempt to obfuscate the damaging truth in Mark Udall’s insurance gate in their print edition.
What are we talking about?
DIGITAL HEADLINE: Colorado official felt pressure from Udall office on Obamacare tally
PRINT HEADLINE: Udall email spurs debate
The Post will say we are nit-picking. We would respond that The Post should tell it to Chris Christie. If Cory Gardner had pressured a state agency to change its reporting on job creation, do you think he would have got such neutral treatment as “Udall email sparks debate”?
And, even the digital headline, arguably more descriptive, absconds Udall and his staff from responsibility. If we were the headline writers, we would say “Udall’s office pressured Colorado official”, but they took the less damning approach of “Colorado official felt pressure from Udall office on Obamacare tally”. It’s like when you’re fighting with your significant other and he or she says, “I’m sorry you’re so angry”, instead of “I’m sorry I [did whatever he or she did to make you angry].”
The actual text of the story follows the same suit. The Post fulfills its obligation to print the story, but does its dead level best to get Udall’s BS spin out before even laying out the facts of what happened. Udall’s spin is paragraph two. The actual emails of the Division of Insurance official who was squeezed by Udall gets pushed down to the bottom of the story.
To be honest, we doubt The Post would have even written up the story, but for the fact that the rest of the country picked-up Todd Shepherd’s big scoop.
We know the headline writers at The Post often are different from the actual journalist, but we don’t think either group should give Udall a break on his attempts to fudge the numbers.
I guess you'll cross that bridge if you come to it?
How about addressing substantive issues for a change? I don't care about this Udall faux pas or about Chris Christy's political bridge fiasco.
You understand that in the idea of a 'revolving door' it means it spins both ways, right? Post employs leaving to go to work somewhere else is not a 'revolving door,' I mean not in the sense that the term is used with the reality-based community. Carry on.