Critics say Denver Post coverage skews ICE arrest data

By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project

There’s one group the lefty press hardly checks: nonprofits

Local media spirit animal Kyle Clark recently said: “Journalists just repeating what the powerful say isn’t news.”

Agreed. The media shouldn’t be, but all to often are, merely scribes.

Thing is, Clark and others have a spotty record at checking the powerful. In particular, they do a terrible job of checking the powerful nonprofits that have so much influence here in Blue Colorado.

More on that topic in my recent op ed below.

https://completecolorado.com/2026/03/23/colorado-press-selectively-holds-power-to-account/

---

The Denver Post’s Klamann and fun with statistics

In the previous post today, I shared a recent op ed about how the lefty media in Colorado by and large swallow wholewhat they’re fed by nonprofits (at least those they agree with).

Seth Klamann, Denver Post advocate, has elements of that in his piece about Trump and ICE below.

Quoting with links intact:

“The Post analyzed ICE arrest and detention data obtained and released in full by the Deportation Data Project, which is composed of researchers and lawyers based primarily at the University of California, Berkeley. For the purposes of its analysis, The Post examined arrests that occurred in Colorado during the 12-month period that began when Trump returned to office on Jan. 20, 2025, and compared it to arrests made during President Joe Biden’s final year in office. The Deportation Data Project, using data obtained from public records requests, has released four broad batches of ICE data detailing arrests and detentions since Trump’s return to office. ICE has released far more limited information on its operations, often focusing on arrests of immigrants with criminal backgrounds.”

then later

“In an unsigned statement Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security said the data — which was obtained by the data project through public records requests — ‘is not accurate.’ An unidentified media office representative did not say what part of the data was incorrect and did not directly address questions about The Post’s findings. ‘The facts are: ICE is targeting criminal illegal aliens including murderers, rapists, criminals, gang members and more,” the DHS representative wrote in an email to The Post. “Nearly 70% of ICE arrests nationwide are of illegal aliens charged or convicted of a crime in the U.S.’”

Of note here is the fact that Klamann, who apparently did limited outside verification of the Deportation Data Project’s work, throws shade on what DHS says because they didn’t do his job for him, because DHS doesn’t walk him through why they disagree.

A real journalist, a real investigator, would start from the premise that both parties are likely to be skewing the numbers and do his own looking, not take what a group of Berkley says as gospel until proven otherwise.

There’s a whole lot we’ll ignore and/or not touch on. We’re not going to consider whether or not the Deportation Data Project or DHS has the “correct” numbers. We’re not going to consider outside influences on arrests. For example, we won’t try to delve into whether or not places like Colorado don’t charge illegal immigrants to help them avoid ICE attention. We also won’t delve into why Klamann chose the last year of Biden’s term as the comparator for the first year of Trumps, along with what (if any) effect that choice has on his results.

What I want to focus on is what’s doable in one post. We just alluded to Klamann’s preferential treatment of claims made by one group vs. another. Now let’s focus on something you can take with you to other articles that toss numbers at you: how parsing them and characterizing them can be used to editorialize.

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT THE COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.