The news media should stop picking on Boulder.

When something happens in Boulder that doesn't square with the city's peace-and-love stereotype, bingo, it's big news in Denver - while comparable news is ignored or downplayed elsewhere.

The latest example is Tuesday's front-page article in the Rocky Mountain News about three hate crimes in Boulder, described as an "outbreak of violence bruising this town's tolerant image."

The major headline, "Black eye for Boulder," made me think the Rocky considered the beatings newsworthy not because gay people were attacked but because it happened in Boulder. (The Denver Post placed this story on Page 4B.)

Reporters should cover hate crimes, even minor ones, but you can bet the Boulder attacks wouldn't have been considered very newsworthy if they occurred in Denver.

A couple months ago, the sentencing of Jason Fiske, who killed a gay man in Montrose in 2005, merited Page 25 in the Rocky and 5B in the Post. The sentencing of the accomplice in this hate crime got similar treatment in May.

In 2005, when the Montrose murder got more coverage, there weren't any snotty headlines like, "Black eye for Montrose." OK, the Montrose case was murder, not assault, but still . . .

Other Boulder news that's trickled into the Denver dailies over the past year or so shows a similar pattern of Boulder hype tinged with a condescending there-they-go-again-in-Boulder tone.

There was the minor dispute in Boulder about whether a proposed "anti- hate" hotline, allowing people to report hate crimes, threatened people's civil liberties. This snagged multiple stories in the dailies.

Then there was the story about the volunteer member of the Boulder Human Relations Commission who wrote on his MySpace Web site: "I'm tired, I'm hungry, I'm horny, I'm stoned . . . and I'm a city official."

You might think I'm joking, but this was front-page news in the Rocky.

And it's hard to deny that the Ward Churchill and JonBenet Ramsey media frenzies, which will probably never end, were in part driven by their Boulder origins.

All this dubious and excessive coverage of Boulder is bad journalism - though, to be fair, many Boulder stories in the dailies are treated fairly.

Boulder clearly tries to create a just and sustainable community, and is actually more like a typical European than U.S. city.

But it will never be the perfect la-la land.

Reporters love irony. And what's more ironic than fighting, lying and murder in a rich, beautiful, earnest and peaceful place like Boulder.

But journalists shouldn't inflate or mock every Boulder blemish as if the Flatirons were falling.

Littwin back in your face. Mike Littwin's column appeared on Page 5 of the Rocky this week, just like old times.

In late January, the RockyTalk page - on which Littwin and his fellow Rocky metro columnists appear - was shuffled off to the back of the paper as part of the Rocky's redesign. His column moves to the news pages when he's on assignment. This week he was covering the presidential campaign in New Hampshire.

A liberal columnist's story in the news section? Smells like liberal bias, doesn't it?

No. It's just the Rocky trying to be fun to read, and having fun is good for all of us, whether you're conservative or liberal.

News editor John Temple e-mailed me that Littwin is "on scene to give our readers his unique view of events, and to do that best, he should show them what he sees through his eyes. We both agree that the columns from the road should be more reporterly."

So Littwin's pieces still carry a liberal bias.

But conservatives and journalistic purists shouldn't have an irrational spasmodic attack about this. It doesn't mean the Rocky is biased at all. In fact, there's no evidence of systemic liberal bias at the Rocky. A few stories by Littwin in the news section don't poison the newspaper.

But, please, Rocky editors, when you put Littwin on Page 5, run a note on the RockyTalk page telling his regular readers where to find him.

Kopel outdid Coulter. Last week, my friend Dave Kopel wrote in this space that Rocky columnist Paul Campos is nasty like Ann Coulter.

Campos compared to Coulter? That's a stretch. Although Coulter recently used the term "faggot" in connection with Democratic presidential contender John Edwards, her record is much more horrific.

She once stated that her "only regret" was that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh "did not go to the New York Times building." Google her past pronouncements if you want to feel ill.

Campos may jump into the gutter on occasion, but Campos ain't no Ann Coulter.

This illustrates a common journalistic flaw.

Sometimes a columnist or reporter will get so attached to a phrase or idea, like balding Campos compared to hairy Coulter, that evidence takes a back seat. That's the mistake Kopel made.

But Kopel succeeded in doing something remarkable. He outdid Coulter. I mean, would you rather be called a "faggot" or "Ann Coulter"?

Jason Salzman, president of Cause Communications and board chairman of Rocky Mountain Media Watch, is the author of Making the News: A Guide for Activists and Nonprofits. Reach him at salzmanj@RockyMountainNews.com.

Back to Top