I posted some of this under an earlier thread but I think it got lost in the shuffle, so I'm starting a new thread to specifically raise this issue.

I'd like to address the opinion vs. news topic. One of my hopes in joining this board was to perhaps influence some changes in regard to The Gazette's use of local columnists. In the past I've traded a few critical emails with the Business editor on the subject. Dave Bamberger's column in the Business Section is presented as prevailing wisdom when in fact his columns are often controversial and not black and white. They are different than a column advising how to install a celing fan, for example. I don't mean to pick on Dave Bamberger, but his is an example I know well.

IMHO, Bamberger's column reflects a significant bias based largely on who his clients are. He's a local economist who works a lot for builders, developers, the Housing and Building Association, etc. I actually went through a couple years of his columns and found that over 60% of them were either about his clients or advocated public policy favorable to his clients. I'm not blaming him for this; he writes what he knows. But I'd like to see The Gazette do a couple of things about this (these suggestions would apply to all columns that are opinion in nature):

1. Put a disclosure in his columns indicating when he has a client with an interest in the topic of that column.

2. Return to labeling his columns (and similar ones) as "opinion." Otherwise consider moving such columns to the opinion pages where they belong. I'm not sure the new label, "columnist" is clear enough.

4. Be more proactive about rotating in some alternative viewpoints. Dave Bamberger and Fred Crowley are pretty entrenched in the EDC/HBA/CofC world, which should not be assumed as the only view out there. Why not alternate them with an academic economist like Walt Hecox at CC or Daphne Greenwood at UCCS?

It's too easy to assume everyone agrees with the basic philosophy behind most of his columns. But that is not the case.

Glad to see some dialogue happening here!

Dave

In response to the post regarding Bamberger. I find it difficult to agree that he should be classified as an opinion column. I believe he is supposed to be an economist. What he writes about concerneing builders and others is only in reference to what has been driving the local economy. I do not agree with him in any way as I believe that he has not been correct in any prognostication of the economy in all the years I have read his articles. I also believe that the blame for growth and builders and devlopers not paying their way is false. I have developed large and small parcels and I assure those naysayers that we do pay our own way. We install water, sewer, electric and gas main extensions to our developments.This includes roads, drainage and other items.We then turn it over to the city or county as applicable. I believe the public should be informed truthfully about what is going on. I have yet to hear anyone from the city council or staff tell us where the money really went for drainage repairs and improvements for the last 50 years. They have not told us where the dollars went for road and bridge repaire for many years. Bad drainage and bad roads which are major contributors of congestion for example are not the result of growth, it is the result of the money not spent where it was to be spent. I could provide hundreds of examples of why the mantra espoused by the city and county is false. I can show hundreds of ways to cut the city and county expenses that will redirect funds to what they were intended.

I don't think this is the place to debate pros and cons of growth, but I'll certainly invite Mitch to address this in another forum, since his statements are misleading at best, according to the information I have about utilities extension policies. Mitch, perhaps you'd care to discuss at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SaveTheSprings/, and I invite anyone else who is interested to check out this discussion there, should Mitch elect to participate.

Dave

Dave,

Thanks for taking the leap to get a topic started. I've been pulled away from the board a bit by some recent internal developments -- we're installing a new publication system, for example -- and I've been somewhat inattentive to the discussion here. But your points about columns are worth digging into.

We've paid Dave Bamberger a (very) modest amount for years to supply us with a periodic column that rounds up local economic indicators. He is among the few we know who tracks, in a methodologically sound and consistent way, data that, combined, provide an assessment of the overall health of the local economy. There just aren't many folks around who make it their vocation to collect and (crucially) report vital economic statistics.

We publish his data in our Sunday business section about once each month. The data are the data -- they go up or down regardless of whether Dave Bamberger has a rooting interest in housing or development or growth or whatever. And in recent months, the data have been pretty consistently down: housing, taxable sales, etc.

To these data Bamberger brings a preconception: More taxable sales are "better" than less; rising numbers of building permits qualifies as "good" economic news; a slowdown in home sales is "bad" economic news; etc. In other words, Dave B.'s writing takes a rather classical view that economic expansion is preferred to the alternative.

This is not to suggest Dave B. likes being stuck in traffic any more than the rest of us, or that he is unconcerned about the downsides of sprawl, or that he believes our supply of water is limitless or that growth comes without detriment to the environment. In my years of reading his columns, I don't detect a growth-at-any-cost attitude. He's an economist -- he more than most understands the notion of tradeoffs.

We don't pay Dave B. to give us his opinion about the economic data he collects and reports; we ask him to interpret the data using his skills as an economist. As such, his writing is more analysis than opinion, and perhaps "analysis" is the label we ought to stick on his reports. We use the "analysis" label on other news items, such as an analysis of the policy proposals contained in a State of the Union speech. But Dave G.'s arguments in this thread give me a reason to take a fresh look at Dave B.'s reports and scour them for anything that strays beyond analysis.

If Dave B. wanted to step out of his professional economist box and step onto a soapbox, we would publish his words on the opinion pages. Those pages are available to any other resident who wants to take issue with whatever Dave B. writes.

There are other economists in town who might have a different take on the economic data of the moment. My experience tells me that in order to get them to regularly contribute to the pages of the Gazette, they must be paid. When I was business editor years ago, I tried recruiting various specialists in town to contribute columns monthly or even quarterly. Most of the time, people were pleased to be asked and agreed with enthusiasm. But my experience was that the enthusiasm wore off quickly, and it's difficult for an editor to demand that a volunteer hit their deadline.

At a minimum, we ought to make sure everyone in our readership area has access to our op-ed pages whenever they see a story -- or an analysis -- that moves them to dissent.

Jeff,

Thanks very much for the thoughtful response. It does make me wonder if we’re discussing the same column.

Here is a list of a few headlines from Dave Bamberger’s “advisor” column:


Why I’m voting “NO” on city ballot initiatives 200 and 201

Utilities contributions to EDC help boost local economy

New home buyers shouldn’t bear the brunt of utilities costs

Sharing cost of utility expansion projects just makes good sense

Homebuilders fill a need; growth pays its way

Zero growth won’t solve water shortage (not economics)

Growth isn’t driving cause of increase in traffic congestion (this is not even economics)

Don’t blame new development for shortfalls in city budget



I included the first headline because it sure seems like opinion to me. The rest I included because they relate to a significant group of the columnist’s clients – builders and developers. I think even if the contents of the above columns was totally factual and complete, it’s pretty clear there is an agenda. As someone intimately familiar with growth issues and various studies and data out there about growth costs and impacts, when I read these columns they feel more like a Sean Paige piece than unbiased, academic analysis. They are designed to convince the reader of a certain viewpoint and the data is chosen and presented to make that case.

I think the high road would be to make every effort to include other perspectives. I wonder if Daphne Greenwood (UCCS) and Walt Hecox (Colorado College) would be interested in alternating on a monthly economy column? At the very least, I wonder if you might consider running a disclosure notice whenever his column promotes policies that would financially benefit his clients?

Just a thought. Disclosure of my own: In all fairness, I’m as biased against growth and growth subsidies as Mr. Bamberger is in favor of them. It would be interesting to see what others on this board think about this.

Fair points, and ones we will take up within the newsroom.

Mr. Hecox and Ms. Greenwood have made use of our op-ed pages in the past, and I'm sure they're willing/able to do so as the opportunity presents itself. Getting them to commit to a regular schedule of columns, however, is a different animal. Not to say we couldn't extend the invitation, but as I mentioned previously, it's been my experience that the initial enthusiasm fades away quickly, putting The Gazette in the unsavory position of badgering volunteers to submit columns.