In the course of my four score years plus four, I’ve learned a few simple lessons about politics, the media and our strange infatuation with the imperfections of those whom we have elected to local, statewide and national office.
Let’s consider the banner headlines of both the Gazette and the Bulletin last Friday. The Gazette: “Mayor ‘fully cooperated’with investigation”, and beneath “Mobolade denies involvement with faked hate crime during election.” The Bulletin: “Hate Crime Hoax”, and beneath “Indictment shows suspect and mayor communicated.” Both headlines raise grave questions about the Mayor’s actions, insinuating that Mobolade was somehow involved with dubious, even criminal individuals. Reading the stories shows only that such individuals tried to contact and/or influence him, but so what?
As one who was twice elected to City Council in the 1990s, I can attest that both candidates and elected officials are contacted by crooks and scammers, as well as reputable businesspeople. Unfortunately, the bad guys present themselves as good guys, so you’re always at risk of being compromised. Once elected, the media are on your case, and they’re often delighted to serve as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
With one or two exceptions, every Colorado official that I’ve known has been a reasonably decent and honorable person. And every one of them has been taken down at least once by ill-founded media attacks.
Our era of social media has made it much easier to contact candidates and elected officials, and much easier to remain in contact. In common with generations of reporters, we unforgiving media hacks love scoundrels, scandals, lying politicians and sex-infused trysts.
So, who do we most love? Mayor Yemi is spotless and untarnished, so trying to bring him down is a fool’s errand – but one that’s worth a few dubious headlines in the news deserts of November and December.
Dave Williams is fun to go after, especially since he reliably represents the lunatic right of the Republican party. Yet as a loyal Trumpster, he might be able to persuade the president to leave the Space Command in Colorado Springs, thereby transforming himself into our community’s supreme leader. Now there’s a story we’d all love to write!
Sadly, most of our Colorado elected officials are competent, honest, dedicated, and boring. We journalists loved former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, until she was sentenced to prison for her attempts to compromise the election results. Let Tina go – she makes great copy!
But happily, we still have Lauren Boebert, who managed to generate national headlines for making out in a movie theater with her boyfriend. Boebert attracts media the way flowers attract bees – the one cannot live without the other. Beautiful, smart and outspoken women are always media favorites, since readers often find male politicians boring.
I learned that while serving on Colorado Springs City Council with Mary Lou Makepeace and Cheryl Gillaspie. Mary Lou was smart, serious and extraordinarily competent, while Cheryl was passionate, beautiful and fun. Mary Lou did the work, while Cheryl got local, statewide and national fame. She was the Lauren Boebert of her time, minus the tattoos. Both eclipsed pretenders like me and admirably competent Councilmembers like Lisa Are Cook and Randy Purvis.
Alas, today’s Councilmembers are well-qualified, moderate, thoughtful and community-minded. They may even be jocular and fun upon occasion, but if you’re a journalist looking for scandal, salaciousness, or serial killers, you’re out of luck. Leave our boring and upright elected officials, and head east to the nation’s capital. Imagine the bounty – an endless procession of lunatics, soon to be captained by our President-elect Donald John Trump. I can’t wait, especially since I expect to be appointed to a new post I’m uniquely able to fill.
I’ll head the F. D.O.S.: The Federal Department of Stupidity.
Editor’s Note A reply to John Hazlehurst on covering the alleged hoax hate crime story
John, it sounds like you think I did Colorado Springs Mayor Yemi Mobolade wrong in my article – that I was trying to “bring him down” with a “dubious headline.”
I’m glad you brought this up because it gives us a chance to discuss it here, and perhaps provide an example of healthy, respectful public discourse. We could all use some of that.
The “dubious” headline I went with was “Hate crime hoax indictment shows suspect and mayor communicated.” I considered the headline “Hate crime hoax indictment gives timeline of events” but felt that was burying the lede – because the communication between Mobolade and Bernard noted in the indictment is legitimately eyebrow-raising with Bernard’s texts about “black ops” and “a plot amidst.” And there is the Fox 31 report indicating that the Mobolade campaign team may have known or suspected it was a hoax the day after the event.
And, whether one believes the Daily Wire is a legitimate news source (I gave two paragraphs to noting the publication’s bias), the outlet has a big reach, and a portion of the mayor’s constituents take it seriously.
It isn’t proof of collusion or wrongdoing, but it’s not an obvious nothing-burger, either.
I do wonder if this story may be a case of “what we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”
When I sent my list of questions to the mayor’s public information officer and got back only the same public statement already published in several other articles, I immediately called and just about begged for them to say more. I pointed out that the statement does not address my questions and suggested that “sometimes people want to get out in front of rumors.” But I was told there would be no further comment at this time.
It was two days after a city council member, Dave Donelson, asked the mayor in a public meeting to address the claim in the Daily Wire – that he spoke with the FBI on two occasions and claimed to have had no contact with the suspects – when Mobolade put out a second statement which emphasized his innocence and cooperation with the investigation, and in general denied the contents of the Daily Wire report – though it did not directly address the specific question about FBI interviews, which led to Donelson, as well as El Paso County Commissioner Longinos Gonzalez Jr., immediately asking for a more specific response, per an article in the Gazette.
You can’t be fully transparent amidst an ongoing investigation, I get that. But you can do a little active listening to let the public know you hear the questions, acknowledge they are valid, and pledge to explain fully when court proceedings are over. I had a conversation with the mayor’s PIO, Vanessa Zink, on Dec. 4 in which she said the mayor would answer questions and make additional statements once the case was over – but I had to ask directly to get that comment from her.
If I were in Mobolade’s shoes, I’d direct my City team to say at every turn, “We hear your questions and concerns, they are valid, and answers will come as soon as the trial is over.”
I think that could go a long way with public trust if, of course, information is forthcoming as soon as possible.
However this story shakes out, here at the Bulletin, we’ll keep asking the questions and reporting the facts fairly until the whole picture is known.
