A Tale of Two Endorsements

October 31st, 2006 at 05:26pm Michael Brylawski 133

By now, it's no secret of the Aspen Daily News' pro-Braudis Bias--a bias, in fact, so extreme that it is compromising the paper's integrity as a so-called news source. During this election, the paper has eliminated the firewall between news and editorial in relentlessly attacking Magnuson in purported "news stories" (e.g., the performance art); fighting Magnuson's statistics and calls for change with rhetoric (but no substantiation); and publishing push polls on its website seeking not insight but influence; while failing to challenge Braudis' claims (whether it be DUI arrests, violent crime statistics, etc.) or putting a fraction of the scrutiny of Braudis' past behavior or record.

Today's Daily News endorsement of Braudis thus is anti-climatic. Even its condescending, at times nasty tone is not surprising. But what the editorial points out--aside from reinforcing its bias--is just how much the paper lags in quality from its cross-town rival. We are rapidly shifting from a two-newspaper to a one-newspaper town. For instance, statements like "voters here don't fall for Magnuson's rhetoric and fuzzy math, which he's managed to paint with a sweeping brush that would have been best left in his studio" reinforce the paper's pro-Braudis themes of the campaign, including its own tired rhetoric of Magnuson running for performance art. Seriously, this performance art theme is so tired, even a Red Bull followed by a doppio espresso wouldn't wake it up.

On the contrary, The Aspen Times's recent endorsement for Braudis gives a fair and balanced take on the campaign. It credits Rick for running an "aggressive campaign" but says "we feel we already have a solid, upstanding sheriff with a deep understanding of Pitkin County". It moved well beyond the "art" theme by saying "At first many Aspenites thought Magnuson's bid a joke, given his part-time occupation as an artist. But Magnuson took the race seriously."

Let's compare the two endorsements. In fact, I'll judge the papers on three questionable phrases the Daily News used about Magnuson's campaign: Use of "rhetoric,"; the "picture" the papers' "paint" of the candidates; and "fuzzy math."

Use of rhetoric: The Daily News has seven references (using words like "paint", "brush," etc.) to the tired old art theme and, of course, makes reference to its propoganda piece de resistance, the desert video. Well done! The Aspen Times, on the other hand, has two mentions of art: the quote above which dismisses the performance art take, and a dismissal of the Daily News' so-called news story on the video. Advantage: Aspen Times.

Pictures of the candidate: The Daily News paints a beautiful, 17th century French-realist picture of the Sheriff. All that's missing is the white horse. It gives detailed highlights of Braudis' strengths and accomplishments (actually, it does a much better job than the supporters o n this board and even his own website), with at least eight claims of Braudis' strength as leader--from claiming "we're hard convinced to see that this area is different than any others when it comes to drug abuse," to "providing aid for world leaders when they visit this town" (is it implying that Magnuson would somehow ignore a visit from the President?)

As for criticism of its portrait of Braudis, the paper offered only a vague reference to "increasing drug education." Not too many paint blemishes there. For Magnuson, the painting looks much more like propaganda art--you may as well put the horns and tail on a caricature of Rick and call it a day. Aside from the mean-spirited references, it has nothing positive to say other than "it's good that someone finally stepped up and challenged Braudis." Hmmm... do they really believe that? Methinks they didn't like any challenges to their white knight.
The Times, on the other hand, while endorsing Braudis had kind words for the Sheriff's leadership, but acknowledged "his leadership scrutinized during this election may have pointed out some things that Braudis can do better; we think he could forge stronger bonds with the local schools, for example." The painting was more realistic, yet conveyed some complexity, maybe an Impressionist joint a la Renoir.

As for Magnuson, the paper was critical as well, but offered balanced praise in "most of the credit for the debate - both the relevant aspects and the bizarre - must go to Rick Magnuson, the Aspen community safety officer who had the guts to challenge Sheriff Bob Braudis in the first place. At first many Aspenites thought Magnuson's bid a joke, given his part-time occupation as an artist. But Magnuson took the race seriously; he probed Braudis' record and questioned his policies, he proposed initiatives of his own, he forced Braudis to react, to defend his record and to run an election campaign for the first time in years." This painting again was fair, in the same mode as Braudis. I'd put both in the Louvre. Advantage: Aspen Times.

Use of "fuzzy math": The Daily News accuses Magnuson of "fuzzy math" and "tailor(ed) statistics." Interesting...but they forgot to give one instance where Magnuson used fuzzy math. Go back and re-read Magnuson's posts and press releases--if anything stands out, it's how his numbers have held up. And he's given dozens of stats. Impotantly, in all of Magnuson's numbers, he used a method called benchmarking: comparing PitCo's performance to national, state, and local metrics.

In many critical areas, like DUI stops and deaths, drug-related deaths, cost-per-service-call, solved cases for violent crimes (as we still don't have Braudis' #s before 2004), PitCo just plain lags other comparables. Benchmarking is standard practice in business, and done by anyone whose ever bought or sold a house. It's humorous to me that no one--except for maybe Wharf Rat on this board--has shown any depth or critical thinking in delving into Magnuson's benchmarking statistics, yet claim Magnuson's numbers are inaccurate. Where's the beef?

Instead, the Daily News tries to portray Rick's use of performance metrics as his claiming the valley is "is a crime-riddled area where no one is safe...a South Compton in the Rockies, rife with shootings, stabbings and a skid row full of junkies." Nice, florid rhetoric, but I don't recall any of this language in Magnuson's campaign. What Magnuson's benchmarking did, simply, is point out that in the performance metrics that the Sheriff should be concerned about--public safety-related deaths that his policies affect (e.g., DUIs, drug overdoses), cost per case and management structure, etc.--the department is lagging national, state, and (more importantly) local agencies.

Ironically, the overall murder-rate, which the Daily News points out as a "metric", is fuzzy-math of the grandest scale. Let's benchmark this ourselves: what is the murder rate of Aspen and Basalt over the same time period? Zero. Does that make Aspen and Basalt infinitely more safe? Of course not. The data points out that murder is not a public safety risk in our valley.

The same Daily News fuzzy-math logic, of course, can be used to justify another ludicrous claim: that PitCo police are much more violent than Aspen police. Over the last decade, the Aspen Police have never killed anyone on duty; Pitkin County Sheriff's office have killed one person. Did Rick bring this up? Of course not. Would anyone with half a cranium then claim that PitCo deputies are more violent than Aspen Police officers? Of course not. Again, the Pitkin Sheriff fatality was justified in self-defense, and the overall lack of violence in this local area shows this is just not a safety issue in our valley.

The point is that, honestly, the folk at the Daily News aren't sophisticated enough to understand cause and effect, what statistics are relevant and which are not, or how to use metrics to measure performance (my guess is that they've never done any internal benchmarking themselves or have a performance-oriented culture...probably it's a mom-and-pop shop stuck with high turnover and management techniques stuck in the 70s, but that's just the management consultant in me postulating).

In this case, it's hard to see how any police policies can affect murder rates. But it's easier to see how deputy night shifts on the highways, officers trained on intoxilizers, cameras in the cars, DUI stops, etc. can affect a DUI-death rate--which again is 3x higher than the state's and neighboring counties over the last five years. Or for that matter Braudis' well-known and argued lack of drug education or enforcement of hard-drug laws can have an effect of drug-death rates--6x higher than the US for 2005, and 3x higher over the last five years.

Don't be fooled when people claim "since life is so good here, Braudis is doing a good job." Braudis is doing a good job on mountain rescue, serving subpoenas, showing compassion, and serving as a local icon. And he's a good man. Those are truly important. And I think Magnuson would do well in these areas too.

However current DUI policies are questionable, drug education is nonexistent, and these deaths--five drug deaths in the last year in Pitkin County alone--are happening. Of course we don't live in Compton (actually, LA's drug death rate is lower than ours in PitCo, including suicides for the last five years, but I hesitantly bring this up because I know Wharf Rat will be all over it ::) ), but we also have a small fraction of the population, different demographics (in terms of money), and different risks. Yet these risks are real, they do affect people, and comparing our risks with other communities, and linking policies that can help them, show that there is much improvement needed.

In this vein, I wonder if Rick Carroll or anyone in the Daily News has witnessed a DUI fatality, or lost a loved one to an overdose. I'm sure, if so, they'd be less dismissive of these tragedies. If five locals died in a plane wreck, or fighting for our country in Iraq, I'm sure the Daily News would consider this a worthy news story.

The Aspen Times, on the other hand, gives Magnuson credit for, again, "(having) probed Braudis' record and questioned his policies, (and) proposed initiatives of his own." No unsubstantiated questioning of Magnuson's statistics, or fuzzy math of its own. Advantage: Aspen Times.

Overall, the two endorsements to me sum up this election in a nutshell: one one hand, we have the "Braudis machine" made up of reactionaries, old loyalists, and people who want to bury their heads in the sand and not see change; on the other, we have people who truly have open minds and have welcomed this election as an extension of how democracies bring accountability to officeholders. And those of the latter may not directly support Magnuson, but they've appreciated what he's done in bringing up critical issues.

In that, I applaud the Times in its journalistic integrity in holding our public officers accountable. As for the Daily News...well, you guys do have better comics.

Entry Filed under: Basalt, Crime, Media, Aspen, Woody Creek, Pitkin County, Sheriff Race 2006

15 Comments Add your own

1. John Bloe | November 1st, 2006 at 9:08 am

Funny, Michael. You don't mention how the Coroner completely and utterly proved that YOUR numbers and math weren't even fuzzy - they were just plain wrong. And now we're supposed to believe that you know what you're talking about. Too bad we're not all as impressed with you and your self-made title as the Con Man. I don't know who would pay you to consult, but presumably you'll start offering some refunds. Still, don't feel bad, we have a great time laughing at you both - keep it coming!!

Funny how you all seem to focus on something Braudis said that has nothing to do with his job, but his private life, yet you gloss over all of Magnuson's admitted lies (which he only confessed to when confronted) and unprofessional conduct - have you read today's paper????

Also funny, Con Man, how you say both papers "suddenly, magically" have the same story today. Didn't you read the papers? The Times only had the story because MAgnuson handed it to them after the Daily News did the actual work. With an impressive background like yours, Con Man, I'm surprised you weren't able to figure that out, instead attributing the "coincidence" to magic. Gee, I thought you were smarter than that. Maybe we should do a little poking into your background. I wonder what we'd find - I hope that bloated resume that you're always bragging about could stand up to a little scrutiny.
2. Michael Brylawski | November 1st, 2006 at 9:54 am

Anonymous poster John Bloe:

"Funny, Michael. You don't mention how the Coroner completely and utterly proved that YOUR numbers and math weren't even fuzzy - they were just plain wrong."

Plain wrong? Where? Again, another unsubstantiated attack. Please see my reply letter to the editor on the Coroner's "rebuttal." Turns out the Coroner is the second person listed on the "Committee to Re-elect Bob Braudis." Regardless, please read.

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20061026/LETTER/110260059&SearchID=73261635495348
3. John Bloe | November 1st, 2006 at 10:16 am

Yikes! The Coroner has endorsed someone AND he might even vote??? Who does he think he is? A CITIZEN??? Someone call Oliver Stone and Hilary Clinton - another vast conspiracy has been uncovered! And this time it has been revealed not by someone with a single Harvard degree, but someone a real live management consultant with not one, but TWO MIT degrees!
4. Michael Brylawski | November 1st, 2006 at 10:19 am

One other comment: "Didn't you read the papers? The Times only had the story because MAgnuson (sic) handed it to them after the Daily News did the actual work."

From my understanding, this was a genuine news story based on a "tipoff" from a Braudis supporter inside city government. Regardless, the Daily News did a good job in following through to get the records--true investigative reporting.

Two points on this:

1. Has it done ANY investigative reporting on Braudis? Any? Did it probe into Braudis' absense? Has it looked into his claim of never doing drugs while in office? Has it looked into any of the case history that has created debate on this board?

While it's good to see some investigative journalism, it needs to be done for both sides. Otherwise, it's just an arm of one person's campaign. That said, I agree that it is a model of the type of journalism we need--actually doing some investigation and digging into details--applied to all of our candidates.

2. Read the Aspen Times coverage versus the Daily News on this issue. Again, the point of this blog is the same--one paper has an agenda, one covers news.

As to the "conduct" allegations--clearly looking at the lowpoint of anyone's tenure on a job is not going to be pretty. It's important to remember in Rick's defense that these are the two issues that came up in his 11 year career. His personnel file otherwise is filled with very strong reviews (not surprisingly, not reported by the Daily News).

That said, here's how I see the situation as a Magnuson supporter:

1. The art project that created the suspension was his "letters" project. From what I understand it created a stir as he sent the letters right before the Anthrax crisis, and clearly at this time any wierd letters were getting scrutiny--any suspicious letter was being investigated to try and figure out this still unsolved crime. One can debate the merits of the art project, but the fact that it came right before this anthrax crisis is an unintended consequence. But given the timing it required action.

2. The issue with his ex-girlfriend, from what I understand, was a mistake in protocol, and what Magnuson considers his one big mistake in his 11 years as CSO. There was no ill intent--he trusted his girlfriend who turned out to be a credit card thief (she compromised ~20 cards). As soon as he found out, he helped bring her to justice. She was in prison a day later, and from what I understand his testimony helped convict her.

3. Of these two issues in his 11-year personnel file, he made one mistake, had some questionable art, but it's buried in extremely high feedback and rankngs. It's a pretty strong record overall.

4. In all of this, Magnuson made one procedural mistake, learned from it, and was suspended one day. I repeat: one day.

Anyway, from a PR standpoint even a robust Magnuson supporter has to admit this is the nail in the coffin. Magnuson's achilles heels have been thoroughly scoured and exposed (Braudis's have remained untouched) and his chances of a victory are slim to none.

I hope people vote again as a signal for change--accountability is needed. Clearly this vote is going to be about the margin. A big margin=no impetus for change. A slim margin=impetus for change.
5. Michael Brylawski | November 1st, 2006 at 10:24 am

"And this time it has been revealed not by someone with a single Harvard degree, but someone a real live management consultant with not one, but TWO MIT degrees! "

Yeah I hated bringing that up, but the people criticizing the statistics kept saying "simplistic" and "novice," without really criticizing the methodology, and I just wanted to point out I have advanced training in this area.

Second, I'm not a real live management consultant--a FORMER management consultant. Trust me, I dislike management consultants as much as the next guy ('we borrow your watch, tell you the time, and then charge you for it.'). That said, I still have a bit of management consultant DNA in me, and it makes me scrutinize organizations and attack problems in certain ways that I think can be insightful.

Finally, can you please tell me where I am "completely and utterly wrong" based on my rebuttal? I really have liked the back and fro- of the knowledgeable bloggers here like Wharf Rat, and it's made me raise my game on numerous levels.

All I see you doing is trying to pull this into some nasty territory, and I'm not going to follow. Post some substance, please. And maybe your name too.
6. Michael Brylawski | November 1st, 2006 at 10:33 am

One last point: "Too bad we're not all as impressed with you and your self-made title as the Con Man. I don't know who would pay you to consult"

I'm not the 'Con-Man'. That's the Blog's founder and radio host Michael Conniff.

I'm Michael Brylawski, just a local blogger. No relation to Hillary Clinton either.

Thought you'd like to know--I think you got it confused with all the adrenaline (and maybe bile) rushing to your head in your posts.
7. Michael Conniff | November 1st, 2006 at 11:44 am

MIchael B:

Thank you for joining the fight for clarity amidst a purple haze in Pitkin County.

I wonder how your respondents would have differed if they thought I was you. "You're out to get him." "You have an axe to grind." Et cetera, et cetera. As it is, since you're not me, they have to deal with the FACTS you bring up, rather than kill the messenger first thing. And they're not doing a very good job at that, are they? The repartee about the Coroner on the Braudis re-election committee was absolutely priceless.

I also confess to some management consultant DNA: ten years in new media. Maybe that DNA helps us to pity the fool(s).
8. Jeff | November 1st, 2006 at 6:21 pm

Did anyone ever think the Aspen newspapers are not biased? Get real. Be it the S curves or climate change, bias is their middle name.

By the way, personal attacks such as that above from J. Bloe should be deleted as they drag down the level of discourse to the basement.
9. Brigadoongal | November 2nd, 2006 at 8:10 am

And don't forget to say how the Denver Post is biased and so is the New York Times, Los Angelas Tribune, Rocky Mountain News, Post Independent and all the other papers who have published stories about Magnuson...oh and Late night Talk show hosts as well... And let's get real The Mikes are dragging sludge in the basement just as much as J. Bloe.
10. Lost Sailor | November 3rd, 2006 at 3:17 pm

so wait - didn't the aspen times also run a relatively negative story about rick the same day the evil daily news did?

stats?

schmats.

here's some stat's for ya based on my local 'pole'- rick is going to lose this election by a margin of at least 20 to one.

there are exactly 26 local that are willing to vote for him today, and another 14 riding the fence right now.

and a big thanks to grassroots the best little network out there, for providing us with the entertainment. i'll be anxiously watching on election night on the couch with some chineese takeout.

*please note - this is not a scientific poll, but pretty damn close.
11. Michael Brylawski | November 3rd, 2006 at 4:03 pm

"here's some stat's for ya based on my local 'pole'- rick is going to lose this election by a margin of at least 20 to one."

I'm going to wind-down my blogging on this site as the unmoderated nature is bringing the sometimes constructive dialogue rapidly downward (I.E., how many masturbation jokes can one person take???).

Frankly, as a true-blue liberal, I'm pretty dismayed at the liberal community here--people and press. Their playbook is pure Rove-ean. As they say, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It won't change my political affiliation or views, but it definitely makes me agree a lot with peoples assessment that "Aspen is a joke." It doesn't have to be, but this clearly was an election turned into a joke by the Braudis machine (including ADN) at the expense of some very worthy issues that were largely unexplored.

Regardless, please re-read the last two stories in the Daily News, my reply above, and the facts of Magnuson's one documented on-job mistake (how many people make mistakes in an 11-year career?) that cost him one day of suspension.

The CBI quote was due to the 'ADN' calling them, and asking for quotes.

There are SO many stories and investigations that could have been done by the press on Braudis to be fair--and from what I understand they were tipped off on a lot of them--but they took a pass.

Fine, but why the one-sided scrutiny?

You are really fooling yourself if you think Braudis doesn't have a lot of skeletons in his closet.

EVERY skeleton in Rick's has been scoured and exposed. He's been honest about each one (ooops! he forgot he was suspended for ONE day FOUR years ago...sorry, what a BIG liar!!!). He's admitted his mistakes. He's been relentlessly attacked personally and professionally. And all he's done is bring up views, measure performance (which I'd say only 10% of the dialogue has actaully been constructive, most others dismissive), and make the race serious--defying the accusations (still made) that this was supposedly "performance art."

Douglas Brinkley says Braudis "is as honest as the day is long." That definitely applies to Rick.

Regarless, on the margin, that is where I HOPE voters on the fence look to that as an opportunity.

Basically, it's clear at this point that many (if not most) aren't taking Magnuson seriously. I know him, and those who really do are taking him, but it's hard to fight against the relentlessly unethical, one-sided press attack.

But it's also clear that there is a silent number of people that are unsatisfied with the status quo. Sure,life here is good, but of the risks we face, there are some cracks in the foundation.

A lot of people aren't comfortable with the unabated hard drugs that flow here, the bloated management structure (despite an incredibly capable force of deputies), the lack of any accountability, and the lagging in almost every metric compared with local agencies.

To those of you who may be silently reading this (those who are blogging are clearly in one or another camp): let's be honest, Rick's not going to win. But a "20 to 1" longshot is going to send a signal that things "are okay the way they are."

There will be NO change. None.

If you are okay with that, fine, but if you want to send a signal for change, then vote for Magnuson.

He won't win, but a closer election will send a signal. Just like company stock proxy votes--where close votes that are not majority still create chagnes--making this election much closer than expected, overcoming the extreme press bias, the perceived weaknesses of Magnuson as being an artist and less experienced (despite the seriousness of his platform and how he took this campaign, and 11 years serving as peace officer), and a lot of people of many vested interests that like seeing the status quo.

A vote for Magnuson is a signal that things need to change.

-DUI shifts need to start at 3am, not 2am when the bars close.

-The management structure needs to be examined to get manager to staff ratios, and cost-per-case metrics, in line with other local departments, freeing up resources for...

-Money needs to be spent on drug education.

-The juvenile officer needs to actually spend time in the schools networking with the staff and kids.

-Hard drug dealers need to not feel that they have a free reign to peddle, without any consequences

-The policies of the department need to reflect the burgeoning green values of the community

I can go on. Go to www.newsheriff.org. There are lot of good ideas that Rick brought up, and I guarantee you that NONE of them will be implemented or even considered if Braudis gets 95% of the vote, which seem to be the consensus of what he's going to get.

What if Rick gets 10%?

20%?

Dare I say it, 30%? or 35%

That will be a signal. I think it will show us that we want to hold power accountable...
12. Lost Sailor | November 3rd, 2006 at 5:02 pm

those are all good points - but like i said before - people just don't care. they like things the way they are. it's hard to understand if you are looking in from the outside, but you gotta understand that's the way this town works. plain and simple.

everyone knows braudis has a closet full of skeletons - big deal is my point. lets's not make the ridge of bell outa panda peak here.

the only signal a high vote count will send is the alarming amount of republicans and wannabe citizen cops in our midst lashing out the only way they can in this town - by voting for rick.

and please - unmoderated discourse? the sooner you have a laugh about this election the better you'll feel.
try it!
13. Lost Sailor | November 4th, 2006 at 11:38 am

brilliant article on the cover of the Aspen Times today (sat).

hear me now and believe me later.
14. Michael Brylawski | November 4th, 2006 at 11:47 am

Agreed.

Ask Magnuson--he's the loudest supporter of a drug court and other proactive means to deal with our hard drug problem (see his platform).

The typical spin and polarization may want to make him a supporter of "jailing" nonviolent criminals, but Magnuson is very progressive in drug policy--he wants to deal with on the valley's big (for us) problems with a combination of education, treatment, and enforcement. And the enforcement side, alas, involves the drug court.

The drug court, as the article said, has changed peoples lives--by getting them off hard drugs.

The paper didn't interview Magnuson (as it should have for equal balance), but he'd have actively endorsed this court and its approach.

Anyone else see some irony here?

You actually have to get drug dealers and addicts INTO court to get them into this form of treatment.

Given that this court exists, and we have a progressive way to help those with problems without putting them in jail, there is NO excuse for some of Braudis' policies like not accepting anonymous tips, telling hard drug dealers (who are enabling the drug trade without any forms of quality control or health and safety) to 'cool it' numerous times, etc.

Maybe with this drug court, and the exposure that Braudis puts no money into drug education or proactive sheriffing presence in the schools, we'll see some changes for the good.
15. Lost Sailor | November 4th, 2006 at 12:22 pm

don't see the irony, but i'm really not that bright.

in regards to the whole sheriff at the schools thing, I don't know that that's necessary.

a couple of weekends i was up at the friday night lights ahs boys soccer game and i ran into brad, the school police guy. i said hello and chatted with him for a while - told him there was an all ages show at the belly up that he should do a walk through.

the apd has a real strong presence in the schools. maybee the sheriff feels that the apd has got it covered. or maybee it's a budget thing. i'll ask one of the sherrifs i know next time i run into one of them and get back with you on that.

sheriff and apd at the schools.....is that overkill?

maybee, but it couldn't hurt.

the sheriff could certainly go up to the schools and pass out lighters and rubbers to the kids - that would be a good start. (joke)

what's rick's policy on masturbation? (yet another bad joke)