August 1, 2025 • 36 mins
The Denver Post, in its infinite wisdom and liberal bias, takes up the cause for Mayor Johnston and goes on the attack against three women operating as private citizens behind the X handle 'Do Better Denver.' What could possibly explain this decision on ethical and moral grounds?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Wow. Will this piece in the Denver Post on do
Better Denver?
Speaker 1 (00:18):
That is not the American way, not the American way
of journalism. Any American way of journalism I'm familiar with.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Over the years. And I've been around a minute, and
let me come right out of.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
The gate saying, Hey, there are so many people at
the Denver Post, so many people who've been at the
Denver Post, who I have tremendous respect for. I mean
the vast majority I disagree with, you know, ideologically and
things like that, but I have tremendous respect for them individually.
And so it's just stunning to me to see this
(00:50):
piece that has been published in the Denver Post today.
Who is do Better Denver? Meet three women feeding information
to Denver's life out as social media critic way to say,
where does this even come from? I mean the Denver
Post and listen, I understand it's on the opposite side
of the political realm. That's fine, you know, so are
(01:11):
a lot of my family members who live outside of Colorado,
and maybe one who lives under my roof, our roof.
But the point is this, there still has to be
some basic journalistic standards here, right. I mean, it is
the Denver Post. The masthead is the Denver Post. And
Ryan and I were talking during the break about Koa
(01:33):
and it's one hundred years of history, right. Not all entities,
not all corporations are created equal. I mean, you look
at Koa and it's one hundred year legacy and what
an enormous part it has been of this community.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
You look at the.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Denver Post and yeah, I have my criticisms of it
editorially and editorializing on news pages. Yeah, but the Denver
Post means something. The Denver Post, over all of these years,
has been a major part of journalism in Colorado and
continues to do some really good journalism and then continues
to do some stuff that just makes you scratch your head.
(02:12):
But this piece, I've never seen anything like this from
any kind of major newspaper anywhere. I mean, just look
at the headline. And by the way, if you don't
know the backstory, Do Better Denver. I don't know who
runs it. You know, I look at it. I've looked
at maybe ten percent of the stuff on it. So
I'm not sitting here telling you everything Do Better Denver
(02:34):
publishes is accurate or something I would agree with or
approve of.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
That's not the point. The point is I think.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
It's very valuable because Denver is obviously a city in
steep decline because of leftist policies, and it can and
should be saved. So I respect and appreciate the fact
there's a website out there that's trying to do that,
and so it must be doing a pretty darn good
(03:03):
job of it to cause the Denver Post to do
something like this. I can't even call it a story
because the story would suggest that it's some kind of journalism.
And wait till I get into some of the particulars.
But please just start with the headline. And by the way,
if you run do Better Denver, come on the show.
I have no idea who you are, but I'd love
(03:24):
to have the conversation. But listen to this headline. Who
is do Better Denver? Meet three women feeding information to
Denver's loudest social media critic, and by the way, if
the story was a paragraph that it'd be bad enough
that the story is longer than the story they probably
ran when.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Kennedy got shot.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
So this is a major effort on behalf of the
Denver Post to do what to out three women feeding
information to Denver's loudest social media critic. So they go
out of their way to make the identities of these
women public. Why, I mean, it's so obvious that the
(04:09):
Denver Post is trying to scare people away from working
for do Better Denver? Isn't that the logical conclusion here?
And why are they trying to do that? I mean,
that's one of the things I'm about to get to.
One you won't even believe. But that's one of the
things that's most remarkable to me is does the Denver
(04:31):
Post does the City of Denver? Which I would guess right,
I don't have the subpoena power to prove it, but
I would guess the City of Denver is behind this
and pushing this, et cetera. But does the Denver Post
and the City of Denver do they have any idea
how weak this makes them look, how scared this makes
(04:53):
them look, and how much good this is going to
do for Do Better Denver. I mean this is panic
type stuff right here, absolute panic type stuff from the
city of Denver, if they're behind this, as I suspect,
and from the Post, because what in any sane society,
what's going to happen here? A whole lot more people
(05:14):
are going to start looking at do Better Denver, and
I hope they do again. That's not to say everything
they've published is something I'd agree with, or that everything
they've published is accurate.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
That's not the point.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
But when you've got the major newspaper in a state
trying to out by their own headline, three women feeding
information to the social media. They're not saying we've got
three women here who are Robin Banks, or three women
here who are doing some dastardly deeds. They're doing a
(05:47):
major story to out three women who are feeding information
to a website. And when you get into the piece,
you can see how did they get quote busted?
Speaker 2 (05:57):
How did they get busted? Well, because they're admitting Coreer
requests to city agencies. So somehow the Denver Post got
a hold of those Corraer.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Requests, so the Denver Posts could track down these dastardly
villains right, who dare criticize Mike Johnston in the city.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
This is mind blowing.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Stuff if you think about journalism at all, if you
think about that, the importance of real journalism, if you
think about the history of the Denver Posts, this is
almost inconceivable. Ryan, I still and I'm getting to the
worst part in a second, and there are a lot
of worst parts, but I'm still wondering, is this all
just a dream?
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Did I have some bad pizza last night? That could
this possibly be real?
Speaker 1 (06:40):
But then you get to a piece of this where
where the Denver Post acknowledges that one of these people
ask them not to I think more than one, but
one of these folks ask them not to expose their name,
that they were afraid of threats, were afraid of retribution,
(07:02):
they were afraid for their safety. And then what was
the Denver Post response to that? You're not even gonna
believe that. So let's do this. I want to get
to that in a second. I want to get to
that in a second. And I want to ask you
this question. When you hear what I'm about to read,
(07:24):
do you believe the Denver Post is green lighting threats
against these women. I still almost don't believe my own
eyes in what I'm reading. Here's the section of the piece,
and this is one of the longest pieces I've seen
in the Denver posting years. And here's the one of
(07:47):
the sub headlines. Is this doxcene. Serena Palacio's first indication
she'd been featured on Do Better Denver was a concern
text from a friend who saw a post with the
photo of Palacio and a record of a recent arrest
at a protest. Initially, I kind of freaked out, Palacios said,
(08:08):
And then wait to say, I picked a starting point
that's going to be too long to get into. Let
me see if there's a way to cut this down
before the break. There may not be, but I want
to give you the heart of it. I want to
give you the heart of it. On Monday, os Osa
told the posts that publish in her name and information
about her could constitute doxing, which traditionally has been fined
(08:32):
as publishing someone's personal information online to try to shame
or intimidate them. She and Pacheco both sided threats to
Do Better Denver as a reason why their names should
not be published and listen to what the Post does next.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Ferrucci, the journalism.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
Professor who'd been referred to earlier in the piece, dismissed
both criticisms. So think about it. You got two women.
They're not public figures. These are people well feeding information
to a website.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Do Better, Denver.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
The Post is about to out them, to publish their names,
and they're saying, wait a second, we're worried about this.
We're worried about ourselves, We're worried about our safety. So
these are our public figures. And listen to this quote
expert that the Denver Post brings in. Ferucci, the journalism professor,
(09:26):
dismissed both criticisms. Do Better Denver's actions have turned the
people behind it into partial public figures. Now, I got
to tell you something I've been practicing a long long time.
I've been in journalism for decades. I've never heard the
term partial public figures. What the hell is a partial
public figure? How in the world are these women who
(09:48):
work behind the scenes submitting a corr requests public figures?
So it looks like the Post is making up this
new term, this new category of partial public figures, to
justify exposing them to threats. Now, listen to what the
posts through. This expert go on to.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Say, do better.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Denver's actions have turned the people behind it into partial
public figures, he said, and receiving threats is an expected
part of being a journalist. Oh my lord, You've got
the Denver Post in order to out three ladies sitting
at a computer doing public records requests that embarrassed the mayor.
(10:33):
You got the Denver Post now now publishing that receiving
threats is an expected part of being a journalist. How
is that anything other than green lighting threats to journalists.
This is mind blowing stuff. No, no, no, no that
there is no world in which receiving threats as an
(10:56):
expected part of being a journalist.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Is there a world in which people threatened journalist? Yes,
And I can.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
Tell you very very few people in media, other than
those who God forbid have actually been killed, have ever
faced the level of threat that me and my family
have faced.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
But it's not accepted.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
It should never be accepted, it should never be expected.
And the Denver Post is greenlighting this against three ladies
who are doing core requests. This is six stuff here,
And I'm going to come back and give you the
rest of it.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
You're on the Dane Kapla Show.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
I'm just sitting here recking my brain trying to remember
anything worse I've ever seen in Colorado media than this
hit piece the Post did on Do Better Denver. If
you just joined us, listen the fact that they're doing
a hit piece on do Better Denver trying to undermine
it because do Better Denver is so effective in pointing
(12:00):
out the horrific failures of the Johnston administration.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Yeah, that's bad. But if that's all this thing was,
you know, I'd be saying.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
You know, just how stupid of the Post, because all
this is going to do is help do Better Denver.
But in my constitutionally protected opinion, it is much much,
much much more insidious than that. What the Post has
done here and extraordinarily dangerous, dangerous. I mean, we live
in a city where Alan Berg was murdered for his
(12:35):
journalism on eight fifty KOA, which just celebrated its one
hundred year anniversary, and is what does the Post do here?
It not only outs these three women who are clearly
not public figures and are just submitting public records requests
for this investigative site do Better Denver.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
It outs them, and then.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
When the women, or at least some of them expressed concern,
learn that this could endanger them because there have been
threats to do Better Denver. This could put them in
physical danger. What does the post do? I read from
it in the earlier segment, the Post did a section
of this piece called is this doxne and then brought
(13:17):
in a so called expert, a so called expert journalist
to say, oh no, no, and I'm paraphrasing right, read
the piece for yourself, but this is how I took it,
and I'll read it to your verbatim again, bringing a
so called expert to say, oh no, if you're going
to be if you're going to be doing this sort
(13:39):
of thing, submitting public records request, I'm paraphrasing for do
Better Denver, then that turns you into a colled, partial
public figure, and receiving threats should be expected. Here's the verbatim. Ferrucci,
the journalism professor, dismissed both criticisms. Do Better Denver's actions
have turned the people behind into partial public figures, he said,
(14:05):
and receiving threats is an expected part of being a journalist.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Think about that.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
So what And that's the real point in my opinion,
that's the real point of this Denver Post story.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
It is. It is not.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
To criticize Do Better Denver and say that, you know,
they've got some misinformation there and sometimes they're mean in
personal ways. The real point of this story, in my opinion,
is to send the message to everybody thinking about submitting
material to Do Better Denver that if you do that,
(14:42):
you are putting yourself in danger. Because if you do that,
we the Denver Post, we are going to out you.
We're going to put your name in the paper, and
you better expect to receive threats because the expert we
just decided to publish in our newspaper says that those
kinds of threats should be expected. This is stunning, and
first of all, I completely disagree with their so called expert.
(15:05):
No no, and for the reasons I stated earlier. Receiving
threats is not an expected part of being a journalist.
And as I say that as someone who's received some
of the most serious and worst threats probably in the
last thirty or forty years in Colorado, No no, they
are green lighting these kind of threats and in my opinion,
(15:28):
and somebody tell me where there's a flaw in my reasoning.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
They are trying to intimidate.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
People who would support this website and expose the city
of Denver. They're trying to intimidate those people by saying,
if you do that, you are putting yourself in danger
because you know what we're going to out you, and
you should expect threats. And those threats are just part
of the business, right, And they create this whole new
(15:55):
bocus category of partial public figure.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
There is no such thing.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
This is the post trying to justify outing three people
who are not public figures by creating this new category
of partial public figure. And then they go on to
quote their expert and they note he once received a
dead burden the mail. So they're actually giving people ideas now, right,
(16:19):
So they go on to quote them quote, you are
putting yourself out there, he said, this is what journalists
do every day. Think about in my opinion, and if
you see a flaw in my logic, you tell me
this is outright intimidation. This is outright intimidation of anybody
(16:41):
submitting to this website. We will out you and expect
threats and then and I'll get to the full context
in a bit. Yeah, well, I'll get to that later.
All right, who's our first caller? All right, David in California.
You're on the Day and Capitalist Show.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Welcome.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
Oh how are you Dan?
Speaker 2 (17:04):
I'm spitting mad David.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Okay, no, no, no, Kris, David, and I won't cut
into your time. And we're about to to break and
you're welcome to join us on the other side. But
this is blanked up. I mean, there are a lot
of nut jobs out there. The left is known for violence.
We have had a journalist killed in this town before,
and the Denver Post is outing these three private women
(17:30):
and then making it a point in the piece to
talk about how no, these kinds of threats should be expected. Now,
this is dangerous stuff they're doing. Why is the Denver
Post willing to lower itself to this point to try
to intimidate women with implicit, implicit messages that you're going
(17:52):
to face physical threats if you decide to support this
website the criticizes the city.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
Why would they go that far?
Speaker 4 (18:03):
Well, I was going to first ask you if you
were familiar with Mark Twain's peace on what it was
like to do journalism in California. This is during the
gold Rush days, and these publishers would get ten twenty
duels a day. They had lines of people out the
door angry at them for publishing stories.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Well, and my friend, I want to make sure I
give you enough time, So thank you for calling the show,
and please hold on.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
We'll take you after the break. But if you just.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Joined us, I've been around a little while here, I've
never seen anything like what the Denver Post just did,
clearly in my opinion, to try to intimidate people from
submitting to do better.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Denver. You're on the Dan Kaplis Show.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
I think voters feel likemocrats have sort of been asked
for them, and I do think that a voter asks
two questions when they're considering who to vote for. The
first question is does this candidate? Does this party like me?
And by extension, do they respect me? Do they care
for me? But do they like me? If you can't
(19:18):
answer that first question to a voter satisfaction, they won't
even get to the second question, which is what does
this party think? What does this candidate think and I
think we've lost that first question.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
Yeah, fascinating.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
That is a Democrat congress person, Sarah McBride, who's been
very out about the fact biological mail, and I think
definitely speaking the truth about the current state of the
Democratic Party.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Democratic Party seems to have.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Seems to have kind of shoved Representative McBride a bit
to the side since election Day twenty twenty four. Think
that's just part of responding to what America had to
say an election day right, three out three someone three
A two five five the number text d A N
five seven seven three nine, which was in no way,
(20:12):
shape or form any kind of personal animosity toward men
who would rather be women or women.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Who would rather be men, Not at all.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
It was just America saying across party lines, this is garbage.
This is insane to be saying that boys can be
in girls' bathrooms and showers and men can be in
women's bathrooms and showers and taking over their sports, and
that all of us have to say something that is
untrue as a matter of fact, is really true.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
That's what America was.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Speaking out against, not any kind of personal animosity toward
people who happen to be going through that three out
three seven one three eight two five five text d
A N five seven seven three nine A as we
go back to our phone line.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
So just if you just joined us, thank you.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
I want to tell you that in all my decades,
and I've stopped counting the years, it's getting somewhere around thirty.
Maybe it's past thirty on air, I'm trying to remember
ever seeing a story like the one the Denver Post
just did on Do Better Denver. And as we get
into it with this caller and with Texters, etc. I
mean first going after Do Better Denver because it's very
(21:21):
effectively exposing the failures of the Johnston administration. That's to
be expected right from a left leaning paper like the
Denver Post. And all that's going to do is help
Do Better Denver and make Johnston look weak and make.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
The Post look weak.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
So we talk about it in the show because it's
fun and interesting, but I wouldn't get worked up about it.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
What I'm really worked up about, and we'll get back.
Speaker 6 (21:45):
To the specifics, is within that piece that the Post
decides to out three people who are clearly not public figures,
just submitting public records requests for Do Better Denver, decides.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
To out them, like I think, obviously right, to intimidate
other people out of helping Do Better Denver, but.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
Then brings in a so called expert to.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
Talk about how threats against people who do this sort
of thing for Do Better Denver should be expected, in
my opinion, extraordinarily reckless, extraordinarily dangerous, extraordinarily wrong, and based
on a laughably if it wasn't so dangerous, false premise
that all of a sudden, these women sitting at their
(22:31):
keyboards somewhere are now quote partial public figures.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
There is no such thing. That's the Denver Post.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Trying to rationalize, maybe for its own conscience, trying to
rationalize that these people aren't public figures. And now the
Post is creating this new category called partial public figures
that it's now should be expected those people are going
to get threatened, right, Oh, that couldn't be dangerous at all?
All Righty David in California kind enough told to the break,
why don't you reset?
Speaker 2 (22:59):
My friend?
Speaker 4 (23:01):
Well, I was going to lay out Mark Twain, you know,
one hundred and fifty years ago, laid out what it
was like to be a journalist in California, and how
the publishers and authors in the newspapers would have duels
every day. They have lines of people out the door
(23:22):
angry at him for publishing something. So in a way,
that's to be expected. But as you're laying this out
during the little break there, I was lucky enough to
get on to Denver Post and look at this article.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Here.
Speaker 4 (23:39):
You know how Donald Trump has kicked the Associated Press
out of the press briefings, but he's allowed a bunch
of bloggers to be in there. Right, So the journalists
that have gone to journalism school are kicked out of
the best briefings at the White House, but the the
(24:00):
bloggers who have no training are allowed in. Now you're
crying crocodile tears for this. Do better, Denver. And I'm
reminded of a cartoon that used to run in the
I think it was Rocky Mountain News. It was called
Piranha Club, and it was about a pack of thieves
that were trying to ruin the economy so that they
(24:23):
could buy up whole neighborhoods. They would ruin the reputation
of a city so that they could buy it up cheap.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
It was called.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
Piranha Club and by a guy named Bud Grace.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
And let's start, and David, you can stay the whole show,
but I've got to take it point by false point
that you make. Okay, because every point you're making is
fatally flawed. But if you make ten of them, I'll
miss one or two. So let's take one at a
time and you can stay the rest of the show.
Let's start with your California example. That's fatally flawed and illogical.
You're talking about newspaper publishers who are making people angry,
(25:00):
and they're angry at the newspaper publishers for things they've written. Obviously,
newspaper publishers have decided to become public figures so they
can make a lot of money doing that. And so
when people then become angry at them and disagree with
their opinions, well, yeah, they've asked for that, but they
haven't asked for threats.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Right.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
And now, what you've got the Denver Post doing is
taking three women who are just submitting public records or
quests totally behind the scenes. They have outed them and
then in the piece included a so called expert to
say these people should expect to get threats. So your
California publisher example, I think completely falls apart. Crocodile teers,
(25:42):
Please explain that to us some more. Why do you
think that my concern for these women is somehow fake
or insincere?
Speaker 4 (25:53):
Well, the crocodile tiers is based upon the fraud of
people who are putting together whether this is called a
blog or whether it's a website, and then they're creating
damage by allowing all sorts of innuendo to come in
and damaging the value of whole sections of Denver. R.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Well, let's stop there for a second. Let's stop there
for a second, because you've dodged my question. You said
I was crying crocodile tears for them, So what did
you mean for that by that?
Speaker 4 (26:32):
Well, not having gone to the do Better Denver site,
I can't say whether or not these posts that those
three women that are named in this article have been
pretty nasty. But when you start looking at if they
are getting what is it, one hundred and fifteen thousand
subscribers or upwards that and they're probably being able to
(26:57):
cash in on their website.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Right, Well, wait a second, making you're making stuff up
here David. So you can't point to a single thing
on the website that's false, right, So that's the starting point.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
I've never gone to.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Okay web, Okay, So you can't point to a single
thing that's false, Yet you criticize them for doing damage
to Denver. Shouldn't you be criticizing the people running Denver
who are doing the damage to Denver instead of three
previously anonymous women just trying to put the truth out there.
And I still want to know about I still want
to know about this crocodile tears thing because and what
(27:33):
you're not talking about.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
But I'd love you to take it head on.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
Are you saying that that threats against the safety of
journalists are okay and should be accepted. And are you
saying that that the Denver Post should be telling the
public that threats against journalists are to be expected, and
that Denver Post then should be publishing the identity of
these three anonymous women, knowing now that the Post is
(28:00):
effectively inviting threats against them.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
In my opinion, you saying all that's okay.
Speaker 4 (28:07):
I believe in the US Constitution that says that you
have the right to face your accuser, right, and so
a journalist when they go through journalism.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Wait, I got to stop that crap right here. I'm sorry, man,
I'm at a certain point.
Speaker 1 (28:21):
The constitution is no no, no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
You know what you're doing, David.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
The right to face your accuser is in a criminal process.
So what you're saying here is that the men and
women who founded this country should not have been allowed
to publish under criticisms of British rule under anonymous names,
because there was a right to confront them. Are you
saying that you want to pull the Constitution on me,
(28:47):
I'll pull the founders on you.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
Are you saying that they were wrong to write anonymously?
Speaker 4 (28:54):
Well, there's two different layers of that, and the right
to face your accuser is something that people were trying
to deal with in the dark. Agent.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
Okay, why don't you hang on, David.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
I was hoping for a more direct response, but I'm
going to give you the entire rest of the show.
I'm not cutting you off. So you come back and
tell me. Are you criticizing the founders for writing anonymously
so they could they could expose the wrongdoing of the
British Yeah, we'll find out from David after the break.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Love to hear from you too. You're on the Dan
Kapla Show.
Speaker 3 (29:27):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
You're just joining us. Thank you. I'm glad you're here.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
I think you'll be glad you're here because this is
something none of us, I think have ever seen before.
The Denver Post today running a hit piece on Do
Better Denver, and you know that's to be expected, right,
Do Better Denver has just, as a consumer of it,
I think, been doing an excellent job of exposing some
of the really terrible failures of the Johnston administration. So
(29:55):
the fact that lefty news outlet would attack a websit
site that's effectively criticizing the Johnston administration, Yeah, it isn't right,
but that's come to be expected, right, That's not what
me has me so worked up here.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
What has me worked up.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
Is in order to do that, they've decided The Post
decided to out three women who are not public figures
by any definition and have been working anonymously behind the scenes.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Submitting public records requests things like.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
That, in order to get factual information to then publish
on this website. So why does the Post decide to
out them, obviously to try to discourage people from submitting
material to do better Denver. And so that I think
is a really awful thing and a terrible precedent because
(30:48):
these women, I don't think they've done anything wrong. And
the piece is very, very long, and I just saw
it before we hit air, so I don't know if
in this piece, I don't think that they are able
to establish any of these women have done something wrong.
But even if they had, let's say they had published something,
I'm not saying they did that that turned out to
(31:08):
be inaccurate. The decision to then out these private people
clearly intended to intimidate others from submitting to do better Denver,
whether people are submitting accurate information or inaccurate information.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
So that's the.
Speaker 1 (31:27):
First step that I think is so dangerous on behalf
of the post. Dangerous in a couple of ways. First
dangerous in terms of suppressing the truth and trying to
intimidate people out of coming forward with true information. That
(31:48):
makes the City of Denver administration look bad.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Right. The second way it's dangerous is physically.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
Because look at what the Post did in this piece,
and that's the worst thing.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
By five.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
In my opinion, the Post actually has a section of
this piece that that is dedicated to the concerns of
these women that they are now going to be in
physical danger because the Post has outed them and the
women citing threats against do Better Denver. So what does
(32:21):
the Post go on to do in this piece? And
this is just totally mind blowing stuff. The Post brings
in an expert and I put that in quotes, we'll
try to get him on the show. They identify him
as Patrick Ferrucci, and I believe they say he's chair
of journalism at See You, Kelly, Can you try to
get him on?
Speaker 2 (32:38):
They bring in this expert to we bring in that Ryan.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
Was that on a rough air because I want I
don't want people to think of Evan a stroke. Okay, yeah, okay,
so Ryan's talking to me in my air off air. Yeah,
I got the number you sent me, my friend, please
call Shehley Bradberry and see if shall join us.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Okay, so then the yeah, I actually loved her a message.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
Oh good, thank you? No, yes, thank you, appreciate that.
And the other person I'd love to have join us
is Patrick Ferrucci, Chair of Journalism.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
They say it's see you if I read it right.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Yeah, please try to get him as well, because I'd
love to have him explain this quote they attributed it
to him in this article and then he can tell
us if this is if he was accurately quoted.
Speaker 7 (33:27):
Dan, if I could from one moment, so our caller,
David from California, that got your dander up.
Speaker 3 (33:31):
First of all, he's still on hold.
Speaker 7 (33:32):
But my take as somebody who did go through a
journalism program, who did graduate from Central Michigan University and
broadcast Instetamatic Arts, that is an indoctrination center these days.
So I don't put any more credence on a so
called journalist that emerges from one of these academic institutions
that is horribly liberally biased and they indoctrinate the kids
(33:55):
who go through that program as such. And you see
it reflected in the types of again so called journalists
that are in the White House press pool. So when
you have a non traditional let's say journalist, however you
want to define it, or somebody that's a blogger to
David's point, or like do better Denver, and they're doing
this work and a lot of them they're not getting
paid for it at all, so they don't have that
(34:16):
as a motivation.
Speaker 8 (34:17):
The challenge to me then, for David is spot the foul,
point out the falsehoods and they're reporting it just inconvenient
for your preferred narrative, then tough pal.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
That's my job, and that was my challenge him, and
he couldn't point to a single falsehood. And we will
get back to David in the five o'clock over feed.
Like but it's so important every segment of this show
that the audience know about what happened in the post.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
That's why I want to get this.
Speaker 1 (34:42):
Patrick Ferucci on from CU I love CEU, I loved
every day there. I'm a proud see you grad And
so I want to talk to this guy. If he's
chair of a department up there, I want to get
him on Aaron find out if he was at accurately
quoted in this piece, because according to to the post,
now read it to your verbatim on Monday, Osa, she's
(35:04):
one of the women.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
Who was outed.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
Told the posts of publishing her name and information about
her could constitute doc sing. And then it goes on
to say she and Pacheco, another woman they outed, both
sided threats to do Better Denver as a reason why
their name should not be published. Ferrucci, the journalism professor,
dismissed both criticisms. Do Better Denver's actions have turned the
people behind it into partial public figures, he said, and
(35:32):
receiving threats is an expected part of being a journalist. Really,
the Denver Post now through this so called expert saying
these obviously public figure private women until the Post decided
to out them, are somehow partial public figures, which, by
the way, is not a thing, and that you should
expect them to get threats. But isn't the Post then
(35:55):
implicitly green lighting threats against journalists, suggesting if you support
do Better Denver, expect to be in danger.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
That's awful.
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Wow. Will this piece in the Denver Post on do
Better Denver?
Speaker 1 (00:18):
That is not the American way, not the American way
of journalism. Any American way of journalism I'm familiar with.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Over the years. And I've been around a minute, and
let me come right out of.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
The gate saying, Hey, there are so many people at
the Denver Post, so many people who've been at the
Denver Post, who I have tremendous respect for. I mean
the vast majority I disagree with, you know, ideologically and
things like that, but I have tremendous respect for them individually.
And so it's just stunning to me to see this
(00:50):
piece that has been published in the Denver Post today.
Who is do Better Denver? Meet three women feeding information
to Denver's life out as social media critic way to say,
where does this even come from? I mean the Denver
Post and listen, I understand it's on the opposite side
of the political realm. That's fine, you know, so are
(01:11):
a lot of my family members who live outside of Colorado,
and maybe one who lives under my roof, our roof.
But the point is this, there still has to be
some basic journalistic standards here, right. I mean, it is
the Denver Post. The masthead is the Denver Post. And
Ryan and I were talking during the break about Koa
(01:33):
and it's one hundred years of history, right. Not all entities,
not all corporations are created equal. I mean, you look
at Koa and it's one hundred year legacy and what
an enormous part it has been of this community.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
You look at the.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Denver Post and yeah, I have my criticisms of it
editorially and editorializing on news pages. Yeah, but the Denver
Post means something. The Denver Post, over all of these years,
has been a major part of journalism in Colorado and
continues to do some really good journalism and then continues
to do some stuff that just makes you scratch your head.
(02:12):
But this piece, I've never seen anything like this from
any kind of major newspaper anywhere. I mean, just look
at the headline. And by the way, if you don't
know the backstory, Do Better Denver. I don't know who
runs it. You know, I look at it. I've looked
at maybe ten percent of the stuff on it. So
I'm not sitting here telling you everything Do Better Denver
(02:34):
publishes is accurate or something I would agree with or
approve of.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
That's not the point. The point is I think.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
It's very valuable because Denver is obviously a city in
steep decline because of leftist policies, and it can and
should be saved. So I respect and appreciate the fact
there's a website out there that's trying to do that,
and so it must be doing a pretty darn good
(03:03):
job of it to cause the Denver Post to do
something like this. I can't even call it a story
because the story would suggest that it's some kind of journalism.
And wait till I get into some of the particulars.
But please just start with the headline. And by the way,
if you run do Better Denver, come on the show.
I have no idea who you are, but I'd love
(03:24):
to have the conversation. But listen to this headline. Who
is do Better Denver? Meet three women feeding information to
Denver's loudest social media critic, and by the way, if
the story was a paragraph that it'd be bad enough
that the story is longer than the story they probably
ran when.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Kennedy got shot.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
So this is a major effort on behalf of the
Denver Post to do what to out three women feeding
information to Denver's loudest social media critic. So they go
out of their way to make the identities of these
women public. Why, I mean, it's so obvious that the
(04:09):
Denver Post is trying to scare people away from working
for do Better Denver? Isn't that the logical conclusion here?
And why are they trying to do that? I mean,
that's one of the things I'm about to get to.
One you won't even believe. But that's one of the
things that's most remarkable to me is does the Denver
(04:31):
Post does the City of Denver? Which I would guess right,
I don't have the subpoena power to prove it, but
I would guess the City of Denver is behind this
and pushing this, et cetera. But does the Denver Post
and the City of Denver do they have any idea
how weak this makes them look, how scared this makes
(04:53):
them look, and how much good this is going to
do for Do Better Denver. I mean this is panic
type stuff right here, absolute panic type stuff from the
city of Denver, if they're behind this, as I suspect,
and from the Post, because what in any sane society,
what's going to happen here? A whole lot more people
(05:14):
are going to start looking at do Better Denver, and
I hope they do again. That's not to say everything
they've published is something I'd agree with, or that everything
they've published is accurate.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
That's not the point.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
But when you've got the major newspaper in a state
trying to out by their own headline, three women feeding
information to the social media. They're not saying we've got
three women here who are Robin Banks, or three women
here who are doing some dastardly deeds. They're doing a
(05:47):
major story to out three women who are feeding information
to a website. And when you get into the piece,
you can see how did they get quote busted?
Speaker 2 (05:57):
How did they get busted? Well, because they're admitting Coreer
requests to city agencies. So somehow the Denver Post got
a hold of those Corraer.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Requests, so the Denver Posts could track down these dastardly
villains right, who dare criticize Mike Johnston in the city.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
This is mind blowing.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Stuff if you think about journalism at all, if you
think about that, the importance of real journalism, if you
think about the history of the Denver Posts, this is
almost inconceivable. Ryan, I still and I'm getting to the
worst part in a second, and there are a lot
of worst parts, but I'm still wondering, is this all
just a dream?
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Did I have some bad pizza last night? That could
this possibly be real?
Speaker 1 (06:40):
But then you get to a piece of this where
where the Denver Post acknowledges that one of these people
ask them not to I think more than one, but
one of these folks ask them not to expose their name,
that they were afraid of threats, were afraid of retribution,
(07:02):
they were afraid for their safety. And then what was
the Denver Post response to that? You're not even gonna
believe that. So let's do this. I want to get
to that in a second. I want to get to
that in a second. And I want to ask you
this question. When you hear what I'm about to read,
(07:24):
do you believe the Denver Post is green lighting threats
against these women. I still almost don't believe my own
eyes in what I'm reading. Here's the section of the piece,
and this is one of the longest pieces I've seen
in the Denver posting years. And here's the one of
(07:47):
the sub headlines. Is this doxcene. Serena Palacio's first indication
she'd been featured on Do Better Denver was a concern
text from a friend who saw a post with the
photo of Palacio and a record of a recent arrest
at a protest. Initially, I kind of freaked out, Palacios said,
(08:08):
And then wait to say, I picked a starting point
that's going to be too long to get into. Let
me see if there's a way to cut this down
before the break. There may not be, but I want
to give you the heart of it. I want to
give you the heart of it. On Monday, os Osa
told the posts that publish in her name and information
about her could constitute doxing, which traditionally has been fined
(08:32):
as publishing someone's personal information online to try to shame
or intimidate them. She and Pacheco both sided threats to
Do Better Denver as a reason why their names should
not be published and listen to what the Post does next.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Ferrucci, the journalism.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
Professor who'd been referred to earlier in the piece, dismissed
both criticisms. So think about it. You got two women.
They're not public figures. These are people well feeding information
to a website.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Do Better, Denver.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
The Post is about to out them, to publish their names,
and they're saying, wait a second, we're worried about this.
We're worried about ourselves, We're worried about our safety. So
these are our public figures. And listen to this quote
expert that the Denver Post brings in. Ferucci, the journalism professor,
(09:26):
dismissed both criticisms. Do Better Denver's actions have turned the
people behind it into partial public figures. Now, I got
to tell you something I've been practicing a long long time.
I've been in journalism for decades. I've never heard the
term partial public figures. What the hell is a partial
public figure? How in the world are these women who
(09:48):
work behind the scenes submitting a corr requests public figures?
So it looks like the Post is making up this
new term, this new category of partial public figures, to
justify exposing them to threats. Now, listen to what the
posts through. This expert go on to.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Say, do better.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Denver's actions have turned the people behind it into partial
public figures, he said, and receiving threats is an expected
part of being a journalist. Oh my lord, You've got
the Denver Post in order to out three ladies sitting
at a computer doing public records requests that embarrassed the mayor.
(10:33):
You got the Denver Post now now publishing that receiving
threats is an expected part of being a journalist. How
is that anything other than green lighting threats to journalists.
This is mind blowing stuff. No, no, no, no that
there is no world in which receiving threats as an
(10:56):
expected part of being a journalist.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Is there a world in which people threatened journalist? Yes,
And I can.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
Tell you very very few people in media, other than
those who God forbid have actually been killed, have ever
faced the level of threat that me and my family
have faced.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
But it's not accepted.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
It should never be accepted, it should never be expected.
And the Denver Post is greenlighting this against three ladies
who are doing core requests. This is six stuff here,
And I'm going to come back and give you the
rest of it.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
You're on the Dane Kapla Show.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
I'm just sitting here recking my brain trying to remember
anything worse I've ever seen in Colorado media than this
hit piece the Post did on Do Better Denver. If
you just joined us, listen the fact that they're doing
a hit piece on do Better Denver trying to undermine
it because do Better Denver is so effective in pointing
(12:00):
out the horrific failures of the Johnston administration.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Yeah, that's bad. But if that's all this thing was,
you know, I'd be saying.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
You know, just how stupid of the Post, because all
this is going to do is help do Better Denver.
But in my constitutionally protected opinion, it is much much,
much much more insidious than that. What the Post has
done here and extraordinarily dangerous, dangerous. I mean, we live
in a city where Alan Berg was murdered for his
(12:35):
journalism on eight fifty KOA, which just celebrated its one
hundred year anniversary, and is what does the Post do here?
It not only outs these three women who are clearly
not public figures and are just submitting public records requests
for this investigative site do Better Denver.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
It outs them, and then.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
When the women, or at least some of them expressed concern,
learn that this could endanger them because there have been
threats to do Better Denver. This could put them in
physical danger. What does the post do? I read from
it in the earlier segment, the Post did a section
of this piece called is this doxne and then brought
(13:17):
in a so called expert, a so called expert journalist
to say, oh no, no, and I'm paraphrasing right, read
the piece for yourself, but this is how I took it,
and I'll read it to your verbatim again, bringing a
so called expert to say, oh no, if you're going
to be if you're going to be doing this sort
(13:39):
of thing, submitting public records request, I'm paraphrasing for do
Better Denver, then that turns you into a colled, partial
public figure, and receiving threats should be expected. Here's the verbatim. Ferrucci,
the journalism professor, dismissed both criticisms. Do Better Denver's actions
have turned the people behind into partial public figures, he said,
(14:05):
and receiving threats is an expected part of being a journalist.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Think about that.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
So what And that's the real point in my opinion,
that's the real point of this Denver Post story.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
It is. It is not.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
To criticize Do Better Denver and say that, you know,
they've got some misinformation there and sometimes they're mean in
personal ways. The real point of this story, in my opinion,
is to send the message to everybody thinking about submitting
material to Do Better Denver that if you do that,
(14:42):
you are putting yourself in danger. Because if you do that,
we the Denver Post, we are going to out you.
We're going to put your name in the paper, and
you better expect to receive threats because the expert we
just decided to publish in our newspaper says that those
kinds of threats should be expected. This is stunning, and
first of all, I completely disagree with their so called expert.
(15:05):
No no, and for the reasons I stated earlier. Receiving
threats is not an expected part of being a journalist.
And as I say that as someone who's received some
of the most serious and worst threats probably in the
last thirty or forty years in Colorado, No no, they
are green lighting these kind of threats and in my opinion,
(15:28):
and somebody tell me where there's a flaw in my reasoning.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
They are trying to intimidate.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
People who would support this website and expose the city
of Denver. They're trying to intimidate those people by saying,
if you do that, you are putting yourself in danger
because you know what we're going to out you, and
you should expect threats. And those threats are just part
of the business, right, And they create this whole new
(15:55):
bocus category of partial public figure.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
There is no such thing.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
This is the post trying to justify outing three people
who are not public figures by creating this new category
of partial public figure. And then they go on to
quote their expert and they note he once received a
dead burden the mail. So they're actually giving people ideas now, right,
(16:19):
So they go on to quote them quote, you are
putting yourself out there, he said, this is what journalists
do every day. Think about in my opinion, and if
you see a flaw in my logic, you tell me
this is outright intimidation. This is outright intimidation of anybody
(16:41):
submitting to this website. We will out you and expect
threats and then and I'll get to the full context
in a bit. Yeah, well, I'll get to that later.
All right, who's our first caller? All right, David in California.
You're on the Day and Capitalist Show.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Welcome.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
Oh how are you Dan?
Speaker 2 (17:04):
I'm spitting mad David.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Okay, no, no, no, Kris, David, and I won't cut
into your time. And we're about to to break and
you're welcome to join us on the other side. But
this is blanked up. I mean, there are a lot
of nut jobs out there. The left is known for violence.
We have had a journalist killed in this town before,
and the Denver Post is outing these three private women
(17:30):
and then making it a point in the piece to
talk about how no, these kinds of threats should be expected. Now,
this is dangerous stuff they're doing. Why is the Denver
Post willing to lower itself to this point to try
to intimidate women with implicit, implicit messages that you're going
(17:52):
to face physical threats if you decide to support this
website the criticizes the city.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
Why would they go that far?
Speaker 4 (18:03):
Well, I was going to first ask you if you
were familiar with Mark Twain's peace on what it was
like to do journalism in California. This is during the
gold Rush days, and these publishers would get ten twenty
duels a day. They had lines of people out the
door angry at them for publishing stories.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Well, and my friend, I want to make sure I
give you enough time, So thank you for calling the show,
and please hold on.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
We'll take you after the break. But if you just.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Joined us, I've been around a little while here, I've
never seen anything like what the Denver Post just did,
clearly in my opinion, to try to intimidate people from
submitting to do better.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Denver. You're on the Dan Kaplis Show.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
I think voters feel likemocrats have sort of been asked
for them, and I do think that a voter asks
two questions when they're considering who to vote for. The
first question is does this candidate? Does this party like me?
And by extension, do they respect me? Do they care
for me? But do they like me? If you can't
(19:18):
answer that first question to a voter satisfaction, they won't
even get to the second question, which is what does
this party think? What does this candidate think and I
think we've lost that first question.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
Yeah, fascinating.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
That is a Democrat congress person, Sarah McBride, who's been
very out about the fact biological mail, and I think
definitely speaking the truth about the current state of the
Democratic Party.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Democratic Party seems to have.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Seems to have kind of shoved Representative McBride a bit
to the side since election Day twenty twenty four. Think
that's just part of responding to what America had to
say an election day right, three out three someone three
A two five five the number text d A N
five seven seven three nine, which was in no way,
(20:12):
shape or form any kind of personal animosity toward men
who would rather be women or women.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Who would rather be men, Not at all.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
It was just America saying across party lines, this is garbage.
This is insane to be saying that boys can be
in girls' bathrooms and showers and men can be in
women's bathrooms and showers and taking over their sports, and
that all of us have to say something that is
untrue as a matter of fact, is really true.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
That's what America was.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Speaking out against, not any kind of personal animosity toward
people who happen to be going through that three out
three seven one three eight two five five text d
A N five seven seven three nine A as we
go back to our phone line.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
So just if you just joined us, thank you.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
I want to tell you that in all my decades,
and I've stopped counting the years, it's getting somewhere around thirty.
Maybe it's past thirty on air, I'm trying to remember
ever seeing a story like the one the Denver Post
just did on Do Better Denver. And as we get
into it with this caller and with Texters, etc. I
mean first going after Do Better Denver because it's very
(21:21):
effectively exposing the failures of the Johnston administration. That's to
be expected right from a left leaning paper like the
Denver Post. And all that's going to do is help
Do Better Denver and make Johnston look weak and make.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
The Post look weak.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
So we talk about it in the show because it's
fun and interesting, but I wouldn't get worked up about it.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
What I'm really worked up about, and we'll get back.
Speaker 6 (21:45):
To the specifics, is within that piece that the Post
decides to out three people who are clearly not public figures,
just submitting public records requests for Do Better Denver, decides.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
To out them, like I think, obviously right, to intimidate
other people out of helping Do Better Denver, but.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
Then brings in a so called expert to.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
Talk about how threats against people who do this sort
of thing for Do Better Denver should be expected, in
my opinion, extraordinarily reckless, extraordinarily dangerous, extraordinarily wrong, and based
on a laughably if it wasn't so dangerous, false premise
that all of a sudden, these women sitting at their
(22:31):
keyboards somewhere are now quote partial public figures.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
There is no such thing. That's the Denver Post.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Trying to rationalize, maybe for its own conscience, trying to
rationalize that these people aren't public figures. And now the
Post is creating this new category called partial public figures
that it's now should be expected those people are going
to get threatened, right, Oh, that couldn't be dangerous at all?
All Righty David in California kind enough told to the break,
why don't you reset?
Speaker 2 (22:59):
My friend?
Speaker 4 (23:01):
Well, I was going to lay out Mark Twain, you know,
one hundred and fifty years ago, laid out what it
was like to be a journalist in California, and how
the publishers and authors in the newspapers would have duels
every day. They have lines of people out the door
(23:22):
angry at him for publishing something. So in a way,
that's to be expected. But as you're laying this out
during the little break there, I was lucky enough to
get on to Denver Post and look at this article.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Here.
Speaker 4 (23:39):
You know how Donald Trump has kicked the Associated Press
out of the press briefings, but he's allowed a bunch
of bloggers to be in there. Right, So the journalists
that have gone to journalism school are kicked out of
the best briefings at the White House, but the the
(24:00):
bloggers who have no training are allowed in. Now you're
crying crocodile tears for this. Do better, Denver. And I'm
reminded of a cartoon that used to run in the
I think it was Rocky Mountain News. It was called
Piranha Club, and it was about a pack of thieves
that were trying to ruin the economy so that they
(24:23):
could buy up whole neighborhoods. They would ruin the reputation
of a city so that they could buy it up cheap.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
It was called.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
Piranha Club and by a guy named Bud Grace.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
And let's start, and David, you can stay the whole show,
but I've got to take it point by false point
that you make. Okay, because every point you're making is
fatally flawed. But if you make ten of them, I'll
miss one or two. So let's take one at a
time and you can stay the rest of the show.
Let's start with your California example. That's fatally flawed and illogical.
You're talking about newspaper publishers who are making people angry,
(25:00):
and they're angry at the newspaper publishers for things they've written. Obviously,
newspaper publishers have decided to become public figures so they
can make a lot of money doing that. And so
when people then become angry at them and disagree with
their opinions, well, yeah, they've asked for that, but they
haven't asked for threats.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Right.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
And now, what you've got the Denver Post doing is
taking three women who are just submitting public records or
quests totally behind the scenes. They have outed them and
then in the piece included a so called expert to
say these people should expect to get threats. So your
California publisher example, I think completely falls apart. Crocodile teers,
(25:42):
Please explain that to us some more. Why do you
think that my concern for these women is somehow fake
or insincere?
Speaker 4 (25:53):
Well, the crocodile tiers is based upon the fraud of
people who are putting together whether this is called a
blog or whether it's a website, and then they're creating
damage by allowing all sorts of innuendo to come in
and damaging the value of whole sections of Denver. R.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Well, let's stop there for a second. Let's stop there
for a second, because you've dodged my question. You said
I was crying crocodile tears for them, So what did
you mean for that by that?
Speaker 4 (26:32):
Well, not having gone to the do Better Denver site,
I can't say whether or not these posts that those
three women that are named in this article have been
pretty nasty. But when you start looking at if they
are getting what is it, one hundred and fifteen thousand
subscribers or upwards that and they're probably being able to
(26:57):
cash in on their website.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Right, Well, wait a second, making you're making stuff up
here David. So you can't point to a single thing
on the website that's false, right, So that's the starting point.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
I've never gone to.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Okay web, Okay, So you can't point to a single
thing that's false, Yet you criticize them for doing damage
to Denver. Shouldn't you be criticizing the people running Denver
who are doing the damage to Denver instead of three
previously anonymous women just trying to put the truth out there.
And I still want to know about I still want
to know about this crocodile tears thing because and what
(27:33):
you're not talking about.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
But I'd love you to take it head on.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
Are you saying that that threats against the safety of
journalists are okay and should be accepted. And are you
saying that that the Denver Post should be telling the
public that threats against journalists are to be expected, and
that Denver Post then should be publishing the identity of
these three anonymous women, knowing now that the Post is
(28:00):
effectively inviting threats against them.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
In my opinion, you saying all that's okay.
Speaker 4 (28:07):
I believe in the US Constitution that says that you
have the right to face your accuser, right, and so
a journalist when they go through journalism.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Wait, I got to stop that crap right here. I'm sorry, man,
I'm at a certain point.
Speaker 1 (28:21):
The constitution is no no, no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
You know what you're doing, David.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
The right to face your accuser is in a criminal process.
So what you're saying here is that the men and
women who founded this country should not have been allowed
to publish under criticisms of British rule under anonymous names,
because there was a right to confront them. Are you
saying that you want to pull the Constitution on me,
(28:47):
I'll pull the founders on you.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
Are you saying that they were wrong to write anonymously?
Speaker 4 (28:54):
Well, there's two different layers of that, and the right
to face your accuser is something that people were trying
to deal with in the dark. Agent.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
Okay, why don't you hang on, David.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
I was hoping for a more direct response, but I'm
going to give you the entire rest of the show.
I'm not cutting you off. So you come back and
tell me. Are you criticizing the founders for writing anonymously
so they could they could expose the wrongdoing of the
British Yeah, we'll find out from David after the break.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Love to hear from you too. You're on the Dan
Kapla Show.
Speaker 3 (29:27):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
You're just joining us. Thank you. I'm glad you're here.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
I think you'll be glad you're here because this is
something none of us, I think have ever seen before.
The Denver Post today running a hit piece on Do
Better Denver, and you know that's to be expected, right,
Do Better Denver has just, as a consumer of it,
I think, been doing an excellent job of exposing some
of the really terrible failures of the Johnston administration. So
(29:55):
the fact that lefty news outlet would attack a websit
site that's effectively criticizing the Johnston administration, Yeah, it isn't right,
but that's come to be expected, right, That's not what
me has me so worked up here.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
What has me worked up.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
Is in order to do that, they've decided The Post
decided to out three women who are not public figures
by any definition and have been working anonymously behind the scenes.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Submitting public records requests things like.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
That, in order to get factual information to then publish
on this website. So why does the Post decide to
out them, obviously to try to discourage people from submitting
material to do better Denver. And so that I think
is a really awful thing and a terrible precedent because
(30:48):
these women, I don't think they've done anything wrong. And
the piece is very, very long, and I just saw
it before we hit air, so I don't know if
in this piece, I don't think that they are able
to establish any of these women have done something wrong.
But even if they had, let's say they had published something,
I'm not saying they did that that turned out to
(31:08):
be inaccurate. The decision to then out these private people
clearly intended to intimidate others from submitting to do better Denver,
whether people are submitting accurate information or inaccurate information.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
So that's the.
Speaker 1 (31:27):
First step that I think is so dangerous on behalf
of the post. Dangerous in a couple of ways. First
dangerous in terms of suppressing the truth and trying to
intimidate people out of coming forward with true information. That
(31:48):
makes the City of Denver administration look bad.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Right. The second way it's dangerous is physically.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
Because look at what the Post did in this piece,
and that's the worst thing.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
By five.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
In my opinion, the Post actually has a section of
this piece that that is dedicated to the concerns of
these women that they are now going to be in
physical danger because the Post has outed them and the
women citing threats against do Better Denver. So what does
(32:21):
the Post go on to do in this piece? And
this is just totally mind blowing stuff. The Post brings
in an expert and I put that in quotes, we'll
try to get him on the show. They identify him
as Patrick Ferrucci, and I believe they say he's chair
of journalism at See You, Kelly, Can you try to
get him on?
Speaker 2 (32:38):
They bring in this expert to we bring in that Ryan.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
Was that on a rough air because I want I
don't want people to think of Evan a stroke. Okay, yeah, okay,
so Ryan's talking to me in my air off air. Yeah,
I got the number you sent me, my friend, please
call Shehley Bradberry and see if shall join us.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Okay, so then the yeah, I actually loved her a message.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
Oh good, thank you? No, yes, thank you, appreciate that.
And the other person I'd love to have join us
is Patrick Ferrucci, Chair of Journalism.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
They say it's see you if I read it right.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Yeah, please try to get him as well, because I'd
love to have him explain this quote they attributed it
to him in this article and then he can tell
us if this is if he was accurately quoted.
Speaker 7 (33:27):
Dan, if I could from one moment, so our caller,
David from California, that got your dander up.
Speaker 3 (33:31):
First of all, he's still on hold.
Speaker 7 (33:32):
But my take as somebody who did go through a
journalism program, who did graduate from Central Michigan University and
broadcast Instetamatic Arts, that is an indoctrination center these days.
So I don't put any more credence on a so
called journalist that emerges from one of these academic institutions
that is horribly liberally biased and they indoctrinate the kids
(33:55):
who go through that program as such. And you see
it reflected in the types of again so called journalists
that are in the White House press pool. So when
you have a non traditional let's say journalist, however you
want to define it, or somebody that's a blogger to
David's point, or like do better Denver, and they're doing
this work and a lot of them they're not getting
paid for it at all, so they don't have that
(34:16):
as a motivation.
Speaker 8 (34:17):
The challenge to me then, for David is spot the foul,
point out the falsehoods and they're reporting it just inconvenient
for your preferred narrative, then tough pal.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
That's my job, and that was my challenge him, and
he couldn't point to a single falsehood. And we will
get back to David in the five o'clock over feed.
Like but it's so important every segment of this show
that the audience know about what happened in the post.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
That's why I want to get this.
Speaker 1 (34:42):
Patrick Ferucci on from CU I love CEU, I loved
every day there. I'm a proud see you grad And
so I want to talk to this guy. If he's
chair of a department up there, I want to get
him on Aaron find out if he was at accurately
quoted in this piece, because according to to the post,
now read it to your verbatim on Monday, Osa, she's
(35:04):
one of the women.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
Who was outed.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
Told the posts of publishing her name and information about
her could constitute doc sing. And then it goes on
to say she and Pacheco, another woman they outed, both
sided threats to do Better Denver as a reason why
their name should not be published. Ferrucci, the journalism professor,
dismissed both criticisms. Do Better Denver's actions have turned the
people behind it into partial public figures, he said, and
(35:32):
receiving threats is an expected part of being a journalist. Really,
the Denver Post now through this so called expert saying
these obviously public figure private women until the Post decided
to out them, are somehow partial public figures, which, by
the way, is not a thing, and that you should
expect them to get threats. But isn't the Post then
(35:55):
implicitly green lighting threats against journalists, suggesting if you support
do Better Denver, expect to be in danger.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
That's awful.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.