I feel sorry for the residents of the Aurora apartment complex dealing that have ended up in the national spotlight as part of the Venezuelan gang story as of late. Besides living in what seems like crappy conditions, they have all unwittingly become a bone to be fought over. I agree with Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman, as he recently told the Colorado Sun, when he says that he feels this whole situation “… has been exploited for political gain.”
What Mayor Coffman, and many others, may have missed (or perhaps ignored) is the progressive media also taking advantage of the situation, even though it’s right up front for all to see. For example, the Sun titled its article “Is racism fueling claims about a Venezuelan gang ‘takeover’ of apartment buildings in Aurora?” The reporter then spends the entire article answering her own question in the affirmative; racism is most certainly at work here. How could it be otherwise?
I personally find this insulting, and just as exploitative as what Mayor Coffman refers to.
Progressive worldview
I don’t mean the usual sense of callously sticking a microphone in the face of someone who just learned a relative died, nor in commercial sense. I mean that some in the more left-leaning local media are using this story like a politician would. Rather than telling us a story, they are using these residents to push their perspective, to mold the discussion about tough social issues into a form better fitting how they view the world.
The Sun story is a perfect example, though not the only one. The Aurora Sentinel jumped in prior to them, and 9News has been tossing in a word from the sidelines here and there. Regardless of the outlet, the theme has been the same: the flare up of political rhetoric, coverage, and social media posts has put the people in these apartment complexes in danger. Well, let me amend that. It’s right wing politicians, right wing news, and right wing social media doing the harm, driven by, to use the Sentinel’s words, an “anti-immigrant narrative”.
My guess is, and it is only a guess–albeit informed by their writing and social media posts on the topic–that many of these reporters see stories like this as bravely standing up for the downtrodden and oppressed, speaking out against a horde of bad actors who would do others harm. Standing up for others is a laudable impulse. Telling the story of the residents as they crouch in their foxholes under a raging blitz is also a good thing to do. People on all sides of this issue need to take a breath, a step back, and let the police do their job.
As with much in life, however, the problems don’t come from the what, they come from the how. Focusing attention on those whose views you disagree with has consequences. It carries with it the possibility that you will disregard, downplay, possibly ignore any chance of a threat or of the reality of violence. We live in a finite world, one where we can only attend to one thing at a time, and we also have brains hardwired to want to only see truth in the things we agree with.
The progressive media’s framing of this issue has also been such that little to no care is taken to divide true bad actors from those that have concerns wholly apart from hatred for another racial group. Let that sink in a bit. It’s a typical variant of the argument “if you don’t agree with me it’s because you want to have others be harmed.” This alienates and insults the intelligence of whole swaths of people in this state, right at a time when we need as much cooperation as we can get.
Assuming intent
Tough problems demand that we not start looking for solutions by assuming the motives of those who will be needed to help in the solution.
If the goal of journalism is to give us a good sense of our world and foster productive discussions about how to tackle problems, it necessitates that the person doing the telling be open to that world. It necessitates openness to perspectives, just as valid and just as morally solid, that differ fundamentally with one’s own. When I read stories like the Sun’s or the Sentinel’s or 9News’, I have to ask myself how much of this happened.
How hard (really) did these reporters seek out views contrary to their own internal paradigms? Did they actively seek residents or neighbors who were subject to threats or only talk to the ones who said they hadn’t? Did they seek out people who have genuine concern about safety–for themselves, for their neighborhoods, for their cities, for their state–and yet do not say terrible, racist things (because their concerns over immigration have nothing to do with race)? Did they remind us of all of the things that politicians on both sides of the aisle have said over time? Did they seek out experts that see in this story something other than repeat of past mistreatment of earlier immigrant groups?
Giving one side, cherry picking experts, letting advocates carelessly speculate, and dumping anyone with concerns into the usual basket of deplorables is not news, it’s just pushing your own view of the world.
Cory Gaines is a regular contributor to Complete Colorado. He lives in Sterling on Colorado’s Eastern Plains and also writes at the Colorado Accountability Project substack.
