-
Website
http://coloradoindependent.com -
Original page
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/3580/what-happened-under-doug-bruces-golden-dome-yesterday/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
ErinRosa
21 comments · 1 points
-
Wendy Norris
181 comments · 5 points
-
DOUGLASFIELD
27 comments · 4 points
-
prsmith
39 comments · 8 points
-
markw4786
34 comments · 2 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
John Andrews’ strange, clueless ‘Coloradan of the Year’ column
1 day ago · 10 comments
-
Report of ‘secret’ immigration detention centers raises rights concerns
1 day ago · 1 comment
-
Stimulus funds aimed at rural areas dumped into metro regions
1 day ago · 1 comment
-
Freshman Year, the gay marriage episode: Polis versus Chaffetz
1 week ago · 6 comments
-
The pro-government anti-capitalist anti-American worldwide science hoax
2 days ago · 1 comment
-
John Andrews’ strange, clueless ‘Coloradan of the Year’ column
Sincerely, Dougie, thanks for Tabor.
Now go away.
And I can hardly wait for the next episode of "Dougie Goes to Denver"..
I wonder how he's going to vote on the slumlord bill?
A person can only take so much for so long and I, for one, have seen and heard enough from Mr. Bruce.
He was much more fun to watch when he was getting under Sallie Clark's skin.
in the know. Douglas Bruce is Colorado's very own Britney Spears and the media everywhere from the monolithic Denver Post to the hapless television news like KUSA to the radio blather makers like Mike Rosen and Jon Caldera are doing everything they can to make him the center of attention at any and all costs.
So different than the Vietnam War, where it made the front page when one of our own was killed. People were aware of the consequences and realized it was going nowhere and rebelled.
Yes, "news" today is a diversion.
Yep, a picture of Douglas Bruce and a story mostly about him! Sure, there are a few other Legislative items bullet-pointed, but no substantial explanation on any of them.
The more I read Colorado Confidential, the more I wish you would drop media criticism from your agenda and use that energy towards simply being media, which you do fairly well at times. Leslie's recent story on Club 20 and the I-70 piece yesterday were both pretty strong in my opinion, for example.
So, here's a challenge. Go back through the Post and the Rocky's coverage on the Legislature since, say, the start of the 2008 session. Count the stories they've published on legislative affairs, and how many of them have primarily been about Douglas Bruce. Perhaps you could do the same thing with Colorado Confidential.
I don't have time to do this (you probably don't either), and I'm sure the Bruce count would be out of proportion to what really goes on under the dome, but I'd love to see you quantify what the media is really doing as opposed to what you just did here.
As for me, I'm working right now on a piece about a proposal to merge the state departments of Higher Education and (P-12) Education, and I probably won't be quoting Douglas Bruce. Cheers, Richard Valenty from the Colorado Daily newspaper
Yes, we have broken many stories about Rep. Bruce, stories that I am proud we have been the first to report.
In no way do I suggest that the media should completely ignore him. He is a public official. Perhaps the story posted above was a bit nuanced, and I encourage you to read it again. Hopefully you will better understand the point that I was trying to make -- that his disruptiveness hinders coverage of issues of substance. And, that some people long ago predicted exactly this scenario should he ever wind up in the Legislature.
There were 370 stories written about Mr. Bruce in the traditional press.
Just sayin'.
consumer rights, health issues...
Without Dougie's lead-in I might think ho hum, legislators, and not read the story. So his name helps get people interested in the legislative process of government.
This is unlike the Britany stories, where there is no additional info about anything but Britany.
"And, the media just can't resist his nasty quips and jabs"; "that mob of TV and print reporters who proceeded to chase him around the building," "whether TV heads and the Capitol press corps will play along" with ignoring Bruce; or that the state officials would surely "far prefer the media to focus on issues of substance."
Each quoted statement, as you will notice, is made up of "media" or "TV/print" followed by an action by the media. And oddly enough, your story included no mention of online news sources or bloggers writing plenty of stuff about Bruce's comments or actions -- apparently it was only the news sources that send their digital data to printing presses as well as to the Internet?
So, feel free to suggest after I called you out that I missed your nuanced "point," but I still think your post was full enough of unfair slams on the media to warrant comment. Also, I remain quite certain that at least the print media has covered plenty of issues of substance this session that weren't Bruce-dominated, even though I might agree with some of the posters on this thread who want more or better non-Bruce hard news from the mainstream.
And Wendy, surely you noticed that part of my challenge to Confidential was to get you to also quantify how many stories had been written about non-Bruce issues to establish some sort of ratio? Sure, there have been hundreds of mainstream Bruce stories, but from how many sources? How many basic duplications?