President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 06, 2007 06:42 PM UTC

Everyday liberal bias in Denver Post's news pages

  • by: Another skeptic

The Denver Post runs liberal  editorials  in its news pages every day.

See the story about Ritter’s dictate of the day on the enviroment:


This declaration by the reporter  is an Al Gore  lie . There  is no such consensus:

The scientific consensus is that global temperatures have risen because of increased greenhouse-gas emissions since the start of the Industrial Age.

That statement expresses the reporter’s and the editors’ support of Ritter’s latest dictatorial executive order.

A more accurate statement would have been:

Environmental and climate scientists continue to debate whether human activity has had an impact on  global temperatures and whether governments can do anything to slow or accelerate global warming or cooling.


31 thoughts on “Everyday liberal bias in Denver Post’s news pages

  1. The Post has this story at the top of its home page:


    This graph shows the reporter’s bias. That the Post editors published it with out editing out the lefty bias shows their bias:

    Mukasey’s approval was all but assured last week when two Democrats on the panel – Charles Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California – said they would buck concerns about his stand on torture and support him.

    This debate isn’t about “concerns about his stand on torture” but about Democratic Party politicians doing everything they can to embarrass Bush and the GOP. This is a Constitutional battle over the checks and balances in our government.

    A more accurate statement would have been:

    . . .said they would buck their party, which is opposing Bush’s nomination of Mukasey on an almost straight party line basis.

    1. In a story about Ritter’s labor dictate, the reporter used a quote from a Ritter supporter to make a statement in support of Ritter:


      This is the second graph in the story, and it strongly back’s Ritter’s dictate and the unions:

      “This is labor being served and labor being brought fully into the fold,” political analyst Eric Sondermann said of Gov. Bill Ritter’s signing Friday of an executive order giving unions for state workers official recognition and bargaining powers.

    2. There is nothing factually incorrect about that statement, nor even biased.  The Democrats are opposing Mukasey on two grounds: his inability to state that waterboarding – a method prosecuted as torture during WWII – was torture, and that he also was unable to state that the President was not able to unilaterally ignore the law as passed and signed.

      Both Schumer and Feinstein stated in press releases that they realized there were questions about his stand on torture, but that they would back him anyway.

      So – no bias, just reporting there.

  2. Another Skeptic’s reply to Another Skeptic’s comments on Another Skeptic’s diary.  Good work Another Skeptic!  Keep it up, you’re clearly reaching and convincing a lot of folks. 


  3. The scientific consensus is most certainly that the Industrial Age has increased greenhouse gases, and that those gases are causing a rise in global temperatures.

    There may be debate, but it is not the core raging debate that it once was; if put to a vote of climate scientists, it would have a veto-proof majority and then some.

    A consensus is not unanimity.

  4. And the only reason you aren’t getting an F is because you turned it in at all.

    A few dissident scientists don’t mean that consensus is lacking.

    Find a better example – one that REASONABLE people can see. Climate change flat-earthers aren’t reasonable.

      1. One of the scientists participating in Gore’s Nobel prize last week published his dissent in the Wall Street Journal. Other skeptics include an MIT scientist and a Colorado State scientists.

        Their skepticism is more important to me than the hordes of scientists who go along to get a long and are in it for the grants. If all you can point to are the prom king and queeen winners, you haven’t been following the debate for long or closely.

        1. is not a peer-reviewed science publication.  Sorry.

          You’re failing to make a point.  In actual science, you can’t expect arguments like “I know this one guy who says that’s not true” to be taken seriously.

          There are many, many skeptical, peer-reviewed scientific studies that come to conclusions you would find palatable, that would fit nicely into your conservative world view and even reinforce it.  They can be taken seriously because they comport with the scientific process, which often leads to uncomfortable conclusions.

          There just aren’t any disputing that humans are causing climate change.

          1. So says a recent meta study published in JAMA.

            I’m not impressed by peer reviewed journals nor articles, which are well known for rejecting politically incorrect articles.

  5. Environmental and climate scientists continue to debate whether human activity has had an impact on  global temperatures and whether governments can do anything to slow or accelerate global warming or cooling.

    That sentence may be true in a technical sense, but is less accurate than the simpler, more informative statement:

    The scientific consensus is that global temperatures have risen because of increased greenhouse-gas emissions since the start of the Industrial Age.

    The Post is reporting accurately here.

      1. Do they all work for the Heritage Foundation?  How can I tell if the paper is written by the good scientists or the bad ones?  Because all the peer-reviewed ones must not count, apparently.

        Really, at this point you just sound silly.

      2. You will never have 100% of any group of scientists agreeing with 100% of anything in their field.  There are always areas of disagreement.  Now, consensus doesn’t equal truth.  But over time, as opinions in science start converging, they usually converge in the direction of truth.  For example, as global warming skeptics love to point out, in the 70s there were climate researchers warning about an impending ice age.  But they aren’t anymore, as the science has led them away from that conclusion.

        In geology, the field where I am most informed, the dispute over continental drift ran for several decades, until more data came in that allowed geologists to construct the theory of plate tectonics.  Are there still areas of dispute over details of plate tectonics?  Yes, very much so.  But the overall theory is almost universally accepted.  The few that don’t accept it are on the fringe of scientific respectability, as the data just aren’t consistent with any other model proposed so far.

        I have a feeling that scientists who argue against anthropogenic global warming will soon be in the same position as those Tobacco Institute scientists of the 70s and 80s who argued against a causative link between smoking and lung cancer.

        1. Skeptics point to what they consider poor data and incomplete data. Further, they point out that the people who create the models used to make projects are the same people who run the computer models, making it easy for the analysts to juggle models and variables until they get the desired results.

          In other words, they question the integrity of the studies and the study designs as well as failures to replicate results with different models and in different studies.  Indeed, some of these “scientists” refuse to disclose their data and to reveal their models, making it impossible for others to test their data or their models.

          And, finally, when anything comes out of the U.N., the most corrupt entity in the world, you have to be skeptical, as if dealing with the lying Al Gore isn’t bad enough.

          1. If your mind is set, we’re not going to be able to change it.

            But let’s step back to the original comment: if “everyone” (excluding the relatively small skeptic community, who relies on a small minority of scientists to keep their hopes alive) is in general agreement that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases stemming from human development, is it bias to say that?

            I know you discount all of these people, but news organizations are supposed to report on the facts as they see them; the fact is that you won’t find 1000+ climate scientists collaborating on a paper refuting global warming, but you can find a paper signed on to by 1000+ climate scientists that accepts it (the big UN paper).  The news is reporting based on prevailing understanding as it can see it – it’s not bias.

            1. It wasn’t just that the statement was wrong, which it was, but it also was used as an editorial comment, which showed the reporter’s bias on the global warming issue.

              If you don’t get it, that’s ok.

              1. I am a scientist by education and also have a firm grasp on source analysis.  I think I can figure out the difference between “unbiased” and “uncritical”, and between “consensus” and “unanimity”.

                What you want is “uncritical” reporting – reporting that does not attempt to evaluate one side vs. the other.  What an informed public should have is “unbiased” reporting – reporting that summarizes the facts and positions and provides background and corroboration.

                “Administration says Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear weapons program” is uncritical reporting.  “Administration makes an unverified claim that Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear weapons program” is unbiased and more factualy accurate.

  6. You might just as well write: “Scientists continue to debate whether the Earth was formed in 6,000 years and Adam and Eve frolicked with dinosaurs, or whether it was formed over billions of years.”

    Because, after all, there are some scientists who subscribe to the former.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

44 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!