Campaign websites
Audio By Carbonatix
In the run-up to Election Day on November 8, Helen Thorpe sat down for interviews with the two major-party candidates for Colorado Secretary of State: Republican Pam Anderson and incumbent Jena Griswold, a Democrat. While this office hasn’t drawn much attention in the past, election deniers have changed that.
Even so, these Q&As didn’t draw nearly the number of comments readers offered in response to our best chile list. But they did inspire letters with two very different takes. Pat Desrosiers writes:
Interesting interviews of Pam Anderson and Jenna Griswold by Helen Thorpe. Noteworthy were Anderson’s answers regarding election integrity in Colorado, while Griswold wasn’t even asked about this. That may have had something to do with the 30,000 election notices that in a “glitch” (wink, wink) were mailed to individuals who are not legally able to vote.
We see Griswold go on and on about “misinformation” and “election deniers,” which involve a lot of projection. Hillary Clinton has never stopped talking about the election of 2016 being stolen from her. Stacey Abrams in Georgia has the same issue with her loss of the governor’s race, and she’ll have her tinfoil hat on after the incumbent there beats her again. It’s fine when the Democrats do it, from the look of things. Pam Anderson gets my vote for her vow to clean up the elections process in Colorado. I have my ballot and won’t turn it in until the day before Election Day. I advise others to do the same, meaning that they have to count instead of having time to alter results.
That said, we will see positive news in other states, but I believe the unholy trinity of Polis, Weiser and Griswold will stay to continue the destruction of the city and state we love. We’d like to hope otherwise but, as Peter Boyles stated, “Prepare to be disappointed.”
Then there’s this from Charles Powell:
I’m writing to thank Westword. Last month, I read an interview of Secretary of State Candidate Pam Anderson by Colorado Public Radio’s long-time host, Ryan Warner. Throughout the interview, Warner demonstrated his contempt for Anderson through the use of dismissive comments that sound a lot like gendered micro-aggressions. For example, at one point, when Anderson offered to share a couple examples of times she took the blame for faults in her office, Warner said, “You don’t have to flog yourself. Just give me one.” Later, when Anderson mentioned being featured in Time, Warner cut her off, saying, “Let me bring that up so you don’t feel like you’re patting yourself on the back.” He didn’t need to include the comment about ‘patting yourself on the back’ to fill in listeners.
In stark contrast, Helen Thorpe’s interview of Pam Anderson in Westword felt like a breath of, dare I say it, “Fresh Air.” Thorpe asked similar questions, but she left out the condescension and needless aggression: for example, when Thorpe brought up the Time article, she said, “You were featured on the cover of Time magazine along with Brad Raffensperger and other officials who are credited with fighting to save our elections process.” Thorpe gave her subject the space to talk, while Warner cut her off. As a consequence, we got a more nuanced picture about how Anderson felt about the Time piece.
It’s valid for a journalist to have an opinion and to share that election-box ballad from time to time for an opinion piece. However, in a factual piece, audiences expect unbiased coverage, so it’s reasonable to expect a professional interviewer to demonstrate a professional attitude, even when they strongly disagree with their subject.
Thank you, Westword and Helen Thorpe, for showing us that even in 2022, journalism can still have integrity.
Read the Q&A with Pam Anderson here and Jena Griswold here, then feel free to post a comment of your own.
Above all, make sure you vote!