Denver Post Doxxed Concerned Sources, Not Citizen Journalists

Yesterday, I published a blog post sharply condemning The Denver Post for doxxing citizen journalists who work to promote public accountability. But I need to get this right—and after additional information and reflection, I have to admit I was wrong in my characterization. The situation is worse than I first described.

In truth, The Denver Post, in its recent coverage, didn’t doxx citizen journalists—they doxxed citizen sources. And that’s a distinction with a massive difference. Here’s why.

What Really Happened: The Doxxing of Concerned Citizens

Let’s clarify what “doxxing” means here. The Denver Post chose to publish the names and personal details of three women who filed Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) requests. These requests are a legal, important part of holding local government accountable. These women were not public figures, nor activists seeking attention. They were not administrators of Do Better Denver—nor were they citizen journalists themselves.

Instead, they were private citizens doing what democracy requires: asking honest questions and engaging with their government through legally provided channels. They acted as anonymous sources to others—not media operators. They weren’t seeking publicity, influence, or attention. They just wanted answers.

Yet, The Denver Post saw fit to “pull back the curtain” and expose personal details about these concerned sources. In the process, these women’s lives have now been put at risk—real risks. The exposure of their names makes them vulnerable to threats, harassment, and even potential job loss.

The Hypocrisy: Double Standards in Journalism

Here’s what makes this so egregious: The Denver Post itself relies on anonymous sources all the time. Journalists in mainstream media ask for confidentiality from sources to protect them from retaliation. It is a basic principle of ethical journalism. In investigative stories—especially those that challenge government or powerful organizations—anonymous sources are the lifeblood of a free press.

But when it came to these three women, The Denver Post flipped the script and published their identities. This exposes a clear double standard. If protecting anonymous sources is good enough for their newsroom, why not extend at least the same courtesy to ordinary citizens who ask tough questions of city government?

The Real-World Fallout

Let’s not sugarcoat the consequences here. These women did nothing but use open-records requests—something virtually any citizen has the right to do. Now, their involvement has been smeared, and they’ve been unfairly linked to Do Better Denver (despite not being administrators or core members), simply because they wanted answers from their government.

Consider what this exposure might mean for them:

• Unwanted attention and online harassment

• Face-to-face threats, especially if extreme voices see their actions as controversial

• Potential for their employers to be contacted, jeopardizing their jobs

• A permanent digital footprint that links their names to a contested issue

This kind of exposure isn’t just careless—it’s reckless, especially in an age when online threats quickly become real-world intimidation.

Why This Matters for Accountability

Why does this episode matter so much? Because public records requests are one of the last tools ordinary citizens have to keep government transparent and accountable. If major media start publishing the names of anyone who files such a request, participation will plummet. People won’t want to risk their jobs, their safety, or their reputations just to ask tough questions.

By doxxing these sources, The Denver Post has potentially made it less safe for all citizens to hold their government accountable. That weakens democracy—and undermines journalistic ethics in the process.

Colorado’s Legal and Moral Context

It’s worth noting that Colorado’s own laws recognize these dangers. In 2022, Colorado passed legislation protecting certain government workers from having their addresses published if there is a credible threat of harm. The reasoning is clear: exposing personally identifiable information can have dangerous real-world impacts. Shouldn’t at least that same principle apply to private citizens out to make government more transparent?

Correcting the Record

So, I need to set the record straight. The issue isn’t about citizen journalists being put under the microscope; it’s about everyday Coloradans taking the risk to be sources of accountability—and the Denver Post using its platform to target those citizens. It’s a dangerous precedent.

The three women doxxed by The Denver Post were not organizing, running, or profiting from any group. They were not seeking the spotlight. They are concerned citizens, now unfairly exposed and potentially endangered for simply trying to keep city government honest.

Journalism’s Sacred Responsibility

At its best, journalism is a safeguard for democracy. But it only remains so when it holds itself to the same standards it expects of others: protect the vulnerable, avoid causing unnecessary harm, and maintain consistent ethics. The Denver Post’s decision failed those standards—and deserves to be called out.

For more discussion on accountability in media and government, and to see my original post, you can read it here: Denver Post Abandons Journalistic Ethics.

Let’s use this episode as a wake-up call. Our democracy depends on engaged, courageous citizens—and genuine accountability from both the press and public officials. Let’s stand up for both.

Note: The blog post was drafted with the help of AI and edited by Jeff Hunt.