Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

SALZMAN: Cheerleader spread a waste of space

Rocky takes on SI's hottest issue

By Jason Salzman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 7, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

It's been a long time coming, but the Rocky Mountain News is apparently trying to compete directly with Sports Illustrated for the best swimsuit edition.

"Sports Illustrated made a big mistake," the Rocky told us last Saturday, "when it omitted the Denver Broncos cheerleaders from its NFL Swimsuit Issue photos this year."

So the Rocky decided to try to do better. It used Broncos cheerleaders as models for its own "swimsuit edition," and hyped it on Page 1. Where else would a serious journalistic enterprise place a photo for such a story?

Inside, the article felt like a centerfold, under the headline, "Let's! Go! Swim!"

There's nothing wrong, of course, with highlighting fashions, including bikinis, in the Rocky.

Trouble is, Denver is already triple-overdosed with the Broncos, and, besides, with all the titillation we have to choose from, these cheerleaders are a boring choice, seriously, even if the crude goal is to sell newspapers.

Next time, how about finding regular women and men, of a variety of ages and body types, to wear the latest swimsuits?

Instead of asking those snoozers about their favorite sunscreen, exercise or "guilty diet pleasure," as the Rocky did, reporters could ask the multishaped people about what they want in a swimsuit and why.

And we could look at swimsuits on both men and women. How! Fun! That! Would! Be!

America is already overwhelmed with stereotyped bikini-clad hotties. A more real "swimsuit edition," showing normal bodies, would have fresher visual appeal, and it would be more in keeping with the core journalistic mission of representing reality.

Schaffer's missing facts. The Denver Post ran stories in April raising questions about why Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer defended immigration policies of the Marianas Islands that led to worker abuse.

Schaffer traveled to the islands courtesy of an organization with ties to corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff. (Disclosure: a client works for Democrats.)

About a month ago, Schaffer told KFKA-AM (1310), in an interview spotlighted by Colorado Media Matters, that the Post's stories contained "egregious reporting errors" and many facts that were "untrue and complete prevarications."

But Schaffer hasn't produced evidence that facts in these stories were untrue.

A newspaper shouldn't ignore a politician who accuses it of misrepresenting the truth. It's not so different, from an institutional perspective, of accusing the water department of poisoning the water it delivers.

I spoke with Schaffer spokesman Dick Wadhams Thursday. He couldn't cite any facts that were untrue in the Post's stories.

He told me, "The stories were designed to give the reader the impression that Bob Schaffer was directly involved with Jack Abramoff. And that's patently false and untrue."

So the Post should ask Schaffer himself which facts were untrue. If the facts were wrong, the public deserves to know. If Schaffer cannot back up his serious accusations, we should know this, too.

Switcheroo. You have to respect a newspaper that will change its editorial position as an issue evolves.

That's what the Rocky did last week when it argued that Denver should make adult possession of less than an ounce of marijuana its lowest law-enforcement priority, siding with citizens who've voted twice in favor of this.

In its May 30 editorial, the Rocky itself pointed out that after the pot measure passed in 2005, "we even said it would be wrong for police to stop enforcing the state law against marijuana possession."

A newspaper should go the extra mile to change its editorial position if it realizes it's been wrong in the past or something's changed. The editorial board should listen, not just act like it's listening.

TheRocky.com. Just because it wasn't working Tuesday, don't give up on the Rocky's new streamlined Web site, www.therocky.com, designed for people with mobile devices who want to stay in touch with the news during the day.

Photos and graphics are stripped away, and you're left with a column of bare-bones links to the latest news, weather, opinion, and features. The emphasis is local. There's a link at the bottom to sign up to receive breaking news alerts by e-mail.

The new Web site exemplifies how news outlets are trying to gain a competitive advantage by finding the most convenient ways to deliver news to customers, like you and me, who want to get news efficiently and on their own schedules.

TheRocky.com is beautiful in its simplicity - though I'd mix in more national stories. And you'll like this: There are no advertisements - yet.

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.

Comments

  • June 7, 2008

    1:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    galty writes:

    How can Salzman hold himself up as a media critic and bias referee, when his own criticism is so obviously biased? Surely he knows that the truth of a sentence should be assessed on its implications and not just the "facts" it contains. Case in point: Salzman states above that "Schaffer traveled to the islands courtesy of an organization with ties to corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff". Let's assume that sentence is factually true. The sentence clearly attempts to smear Schaffer and implies that he is in thrall to Abramoff and is likely corrupt himself. Is that unbiased reporting? The same sentence could factually be applied to probably thousands of people doing absolutely nothing wrong. Abramoff would have to be a criminal mastermind of impossible proportions if every organization that he "has ties to" is corrupt, and then if every activity that those organizations engage in is corrupt!

    Also clearly questionable, but not perhaps factually incorrect is the statement that "immigration policies of the Marianas Islands...led to worker abuse". There are probably no immigration policies anywhere which could not be said to lead to worker abuse (especially those of the United States). But that does not mean that there are not worthy aspects of the Marianas (or US) policies that we should not learn from. Instead Salzman falls into the same pattern of distortion as Post stories: crude sweeping characterizations of a sophisticated and subtle subject. The politics of immigration and politics in general seem to be filled with such stuff, but the media and media "critics" should not be pandering to it. The Rocky did not stoop to this in its reporting of the Marianas story; it appears that the Salzman columns are the only vehicle by which this non-story can be foisted on the otherwise fortunate Rocky readership.

  • June 7, 2008

    6:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    "But Schaffer hasn't produced evidence that facts in these stories were untrue."

    So, Jason, when did you stop beating your wife? I have made this assertion and now you must show facts that I am lying. Isn't that the standard you wave over Bob Schaffer? Instead of YOU proving you are telling the truth? Ah, but as the grand na-bob Rush has stated, it's not the truth of the charge but the seriousness of the accusations.

    Maybe it's because "the crude goal is to sell newspapers"?

  • June 8, 2008

    1:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    YellowCatRedCat writes:

    Mike, the documentation of the Abramoff ties is extensive.. did you actually read the Post stories? Of course, you can choose to ignore the whole issue and hope it goes away, just like the Schaffer campaign has thus far. Let's see how that works out for you in November.

  • June 8, 2008

    10:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Salzman writes:

    I have cited the Media Research Center in a positive light, Gene. I've written that we need more organizations monitoring the mainstream media, liberal and conservative. The Media Research Center is one such organization. Some of its reports, even if flawed, try to use methodical research, not just impressions, to support its conclusions. That's good.

  • June 10, 2008

    11:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    primafacie writes:

    "A more real 'swimsuit edition,' showing normal bodies, would have fresher visual appeal, and it would be more in keeping with the core journalistic mission of representing reality."

    Regular people, in their "normal" bodies, don't look good in swimwear. Especially bikinis. Doing this would guarantee a LACK of readership.

    Note that this "fashion" spread appeared in the ... Home section. Decorating, construction and G-strings. Sure, that makes sense....

  • June 10, 2008

    12:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ItsJustme writes:

    I think it's refreshing that Mr Salzman actually reads his feedback and is not afraid sometimes to discuss points brought up. Some Rocky "contributors" such as certain cartoonists, don't even allow responses to their assertions. They're too thin-skinned. Way to go, Jason! (even though you're generally wrong on the issues)

  • June 11, 2008

    12:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    spencerr writes:

    How 'bout something more...important than Broncos cheerleaders...how 'bout media coverage of Salazar's public criticism of Rush's remarks about possible rioting in Denver and then a lack of similar coverage of any criticism of Roseanne's comments. One of two things happened there...either he did not criticize Roseanne, or the media didn't care. Either way, it meritted at least an opinion column, if not an article.

  • June 12, 2008

    6:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    arby writes: