DISQUS

Truthteller · 1 year ago

Ah, so this is REALLY what it's all about Colorado Confidential didn't get credentials.  I see.

Wendy Norris · 1 year ago

nope, not at all This story came together well before we were notified of the committee's decision.

Even, Joe Hanel, one of the standing committee members, wistfully remarked to us that he wished he could write this story because it's such a prescient issue of where U.S. media is headed in an era of consolidated ownership, dwindling circulation figures, and the promise of emerging distribution channels via web and mobile technologies.

Truthteller · 1 year ago

Came together before? But I notice you didn't have any problem highlighting how you were denied credentials..even though that happened after the "story came together."  Hmmmm.

Cara DeGette · 1 year ago

Not denied Hi Truthteller,

Colorado Confidential wasn't denied credentials. A committee of five reporters who often work at the Capitol -- two of whom did not show up for a meeting with us that they had requested -- have recommended this news organization not receive credentials.

As the story makes clear, the final decision is up to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House. They alone have the authority, and the final say, about who is allowed in their respective chambers -- and who is not.

Truthteller · 1 year ago

None of which obviates my point, which is that you only decided this was a story when it affected YOU.  If it had been, say, for example (since others mentioned it), Fox News that had been denied (or not recommended, if you prefer), you would have either been silent, or loudly crowing about it in glee. 

Wendy Norris · 1 year ago

actually, no Here's the timeline:

12/31 :: A fellow editor tipped me off on the creation of this policy who had just learned of it himself.

1/1 ::  The policy is enacted by the Colorado Capitol Press Association. No formal communication of the new policy from CCPA was sent to the media.

1/2 :: Attempts to reach CCPA via its blind email address. Names of the committee members are unknown at this time.

1/2 :: Applications submitted to blind email account.

1/2 :: Open Records Act requests submitted.

1/4 :: Email received from Joe Hanel on behalf of CCPA requesting in-person meeting.

1/7 :: Meeting with 3 of the 5 member committee.

1/7 :: CORA response ready.

1/8 :: Story submitted to copy editor.

1/9 :: CCPA renders decision.

1/10 :: Story published.

In the meantime, interviews are taking place (as you'll note their are multiple attributed sources in Cara's stories) over the end of the traditional Christmas/New Year's holiday season and the start of the legislative session when folks are especially difficult to reach.

Sorry, no conspiracy here. Just good old fashioned and time-consuming gumshoe reporting.

You're kidding, right? · 1 year ago

Pulling on hip boots because it's getting really deep around here.

Gumshoe? 

Oh, brother.

UNeedBoots4UreBull · 1 year ago

C'mon.... You're so disrespectful.

I don't know Wendy..I've never met her. In fact i'm all they way in NC...But the fact that you lack the decency as a human being to apply logic to why you disagree with Wendy as she's done for you being taking the time to even provide you a time line for how a the story developed.

What managing editor typically accounts for their publications like that.

She provided you a rare courtesy to show you that their was no conflict of interest despite your arguement because the story was filed prior to the CCPA's reccomendation and all you do is tell her she's full of bull.

Anyway why is it wrong for any organization to operate in it self-interest. Isn't this a capitalist society. Isn't that what capitalism is all about.

Further, the story seems to argue that something is unfair about a system where a few select members are given access to influence which are their collegues and which are not due some sort of arbitrary privledge. CCPA is unfair because it promotes standards that it's own members aren't able to comply with. (Editorializing equals active support or taking ad money from a prolife group = being funded by a partisan group)

Fox News, which sell political ads during election cycles, could one day be construed as being funded by a partisan effort which under the rules would disqualify it from access to the Senate and House floor.

Get your head out of you posteior.

I don't know you personally, but believe as a fellow human being, you're much more capable of exuding some intellect into this important discusion.

Thank you Wendy for reporting a story that truely deserves national attention.

Here's a link to another story on the issue that referenced this artical on Freepress.net, a national group dedicated to comprehensive media reform.

UNeedBoots4UreBull · 1 year ago

OOOPS oops I spelled aritcle wrong...it should be article instead of artical..my bad...

plus the free press link didn't work...

here's the address to the article

http://www.freepress...