In an April 23 entry on his Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction weblog, Managing Editor Dennis Herzog responded to a Colorado Media Matters item with the unsubstantiated assertion that Colorado Media Matters “in fact is in the pocket of the Democratic Party and labor unions.” Herzog further suggested that "[w]hen the unions and the Democratic Party say jump, Colorado Media Matters says, 'How high?' " He argued that Colorado Media Matters Editorial Director Bill Menezes had indicated in an email message that the media research organization would not publish a correction to the April 9 item, which noted Editorial Page Editor Bob Silbernagel's false assertion that Gov. Bill Ritter had vetoed a labor measure because “he was convinced [the bill] would be bad for the Colorado economy and all of the state's workers.”

House Bill 1072 proposed revising the Colorado Labor Peace Act to strike provisions regarding procedures under which workers preparing to negotiate a union contract can obtain necessary authority to make the contract an all-union agreement. The bill passed the House on January 22 and passed the Senate on February 5. Ritter, who during the 2006 gubernatorial campaign indicated he supported the bill, vetoed it on February 9.

As Herzog noted in his blog entry, Silbernagel's April 8 column cited union insistence on HB 1072 as part of his argument that “Colorado labor unions are doing everything they can to make Democrats in the state Legislature toe the union line or else.” In defending Silbernagel's column, which credited Ritter for purportedly resisting union pressure, Herzog repeated Silbernagel's misrepresentation of Ritter's motive for vetoing the bill:

A couple of weeks ago Editorial Page Editor Bob Silbernagel wrote a column that outlined how Colorado labor unions are doing everything they can to make Democrats in the state Legislature toe the union line or else.

The unions began to get miffed back at the beginning of the session, when Gov. Bill Ritter vetoed a bill that would have made it easier for unions to organize non-union workplaces. Bob pointed that out in his column and said Ritter's veto was based on the fact that the governor was “convinced (the bill ) would be bad for the Colorado economy and all of the state's workers.”

That line caught the eye of a website called Colorado Media Matters, a site that monitors news organizations in the state for “conservative bias,” but in fact is in the pocket of the Democratic Party and labor unions. That's fine. The blogosphere is full of people with all kinds of agendas. Colorado Media Matters is just one more.

[...]

This is from the governor's veto message, and was what Bob based that paragraph on:

“Over the last several days, I have listened intently to people I respect who worried deeply about the impact this change would have on our ability to attract new business to Colorado, to create new economic opportunity for all. I am persuaded by their argument that changing longtime Colorado law relating to business and labor negotiations in this manner, in the atmosphere with which it was debated, is not now in the best interests of our state.”

Bill Menezes, who runs Colorado Media Matters, and who I've always thought was a reasonable guy, was not to be swayed when I sent that paragraph to him and argued that even though he may have a point that the governor was more concerned about the rancorous debate over the bill and that may have been the main reason he vetoed it, he nonetheless was somewhat concerned about the effect it would have on the economy. And thus, since words have meanings, it is inaccurate and unfair to use the word “falsely,” and it should be corrected. After all, that's what we do when we get something wrong. If Colorado Media Matters wanted to say that Bob missed the larger point and that wasn't the main reason the governor vetoed the bill, then fine, but to say he “falsely” claimed it was the reason was simply not correct.

A correction was not to be forthcoming.

“There can be a bit of nuance in some of the stuff we do, but this time it's not even close,” Menezes wrote back. Nope I guess not. When the unions and the Democratic Party say jump, Colorado Media Matters says, “How high?”

While acknowledging the possibility that Ritter “was more concerned about the rancorous debate over the bill and that may have been the main reason he vetoed it,” Herzog, like Silbernagel, erred in claiming that Ritter “was somewhat concerned about the effect [the bill] would have on the economy.”

In the paragraph from Ritter's February 9 veto statement that Herzog cited, Ritter stated that while people he respects “worried deeply about the impact this change would have on our ability to attract new business to Colorado, to create new economic opportunity for all,” their argument that changing the labor law “in this manner, in the atmosphere with which it was debated” persuaded him that the bill “is not now in the best interests of our state.” Ritter did not suggest that he had had any concerns about the bill other than the negative impacts arising from the manner in which it was debated.

Ritter's veto message in some respects echoed a February 6 Denver Post editorial, which urged Ritter to veto the bill for the sake of maintaining good relations with the business community, not out of concern for any direct economic consequences:

House Bill 1072 moved through the Democratic-controlled legislature with little input except from union interests. Senate Republicans mounted an eight-hour talkathon against the measure before it won final approval Monday on a 19-15 party line vote. Such partisan posturing is no substitute for genuine give-and-take that, ironically, so often allows labor and management to reach compromise at the bargaining table.

Labor wants to show its clout and Republicans want to preen for business interests. Neither approach serves Ritter's need to make economic development -- not labor reform -- the state's top priority.

Ritter defended HB 1072 on KOA radio Monday, saying, “This is not a big deal. This is not the end of economic development in Colorado.” Even so, by signing this legislation he risks losing business support on those portions of Ritter's “Colorado promise” that are key to the state's future.

There was little good faith in the process that sent this change in a 1943 labor law rushing to Ritter's desk. The governor should veto it, tell both sides to cool off, and broker a compromise. Ritter is well-positioned to do this as a moderate who was elected with both labor and business support.

In addition to repeating the Daily Sentinel's falsehood about Ritter's veto of HB 1072 on his blog, Herzog provided no factual substantiation for his assertion that Colorado Media Matters is “in the pocket of the Democratic Party and labor unions.”

The Colorado Media Matters website states that the organization “is a state-based project of Media Matters for America, which is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization” that is “funded by numerous donors and grants.”

Herzog also asserted inaccurately that Colorado Media Matters monitors media for “conservative bias.” In fact, in an open letter on the website introducing Colorado Media Matters, and elsewhere, Menezes has stated publicly that the organization does not attempt to identify bias, but rather to identify conservative misinformation through fact-based research.