The controversy in Denver is now a mile high.

What should the newspaper call the new stadium where the Broncos will play their NFL games? The old stadium, used for years, was called Mile High Stadium. The Invesco Funds bought the naming rights for the new one for 20 years, so it will be called Invesco Field at Mile High.

But The Denver Post says no, it won't, not in its paper. It will be called Mile High, just as it always has been The Rocky Mountain News, on the other hand, says it will call it Invesco Field.

There even have been dueling editorials.

The Rocky said, "Look, it's a free country and people can call Invesco Field by any name they like. Call it Mile High stadium, the new Mile High stadium, Broncos stadium, Elway stadium, Bears stadium, Webb (the mayor) stadium, whatever. But as for us, we'll be calling it Invesco Field, for the simple reason that we report the news and Invesco Field happens to be the name of the place."

The Post said, " The people of Denver, and any other lovers of the English language everywhere, will continue referring to the Mile High Stadium and just that. Obviously, that's what the Good Lord, a diehard Broncos fan, intended by providing those glorious orange sunsets."

But the argument goes on and Poynter asked Glenn Guzzo, editor of The Denver Post, about the newspaper's decision.

Gregory Favre: What drove your decision to call it Mile High instead of Invesco Stadium at Mile High?

Glenn

Guzzo: For the most part, the public conversation about the new stadium is about "Mile High," "New Mile High," or "the new stadium." Invesco Field is seldom mentioned, except in negative terms. Each of the few attempts to determine public opinion has come up with 60-75 percent in favor of Mile High. While there are times a newspaper ought -- must -- defy public opinion, in this case, we find the public's language to be familiar, clear, and concise, and also positive, not antagonistic or destructive.

Because of the way the naming rights were marketed and sold here, there is widespread public feeling that the public's voice was ignored. Many believe that they "lost" Mile High stadium in a deal constructed for the Broncos' benefit. After taxpayers approved $270 million in public funds for a $360 million stadium, the Broncos got half of Invesco's $120 million investment. The other $60 million provides tax relief at an average rate of $3 million for 20 years -- and it's backloaded to Invesco's advantage. First year tax relief will be $1.9 million. I think one of our editorials pointed out that that would buy two pizzas a year per affected household.

Note that in our stylebook, "Invesco Field at Mile High" is not banned. It will be used where clarity demands it (e.g. reference to the signage, the naming-rights controversy, direct quotes, official documents.).

Secondarily, "Invesco Field at Mile High" would fit none of our most-used headline formats, except in long headlines that then would permit little else. Practically, we needed to decide headline style for a shorter version -- "Mile High"? "Invesco Field?" Just "Invesco"? That seemed an easy call in favor of Mile High, since even Invesco Field often would be too long.

Favre: The Post refers to Coors Field and the Pepsi Center. What is the difference in these two versus Invesco?

Guzzo: Two important distinctions: 1) Pepsi and Coors were built primarily with private funds. The new football stadium is primarily tax-money, approved by voters. 2) No public outcry for an alternate name in case of Pepsi and Coors. Also, unlike Pepsi and Coors, the new football stadium is built next to the old one -- it's just the "new Mile High" stadium to most folks. Coors opened soon after the Colorado Rockies began play (third year) in what was always intended to be temporary quarters. There was no emotional attachment to be severed there.

Clearly, we think the Mile High situation is unique and distinct.

Favre: What, if anything, are you hearing from your readers?

Guzzo: A great deal. Favorable response running 80-percent plus in my emails/phone calls and a bit higher with general newsroom contacts, 76 percent in favor in our website poll, 70-75 percent favorable in letters to the editor. Our critics include several who said they are canceling subscriptions and/or will switch their subscriptions to The Rocky Mountain News. They say 1) Report the news, don't make it, 2) If you can't stick to the facts, what else are you making up? 3) You are arrogant -- I suppose you think you can change a person's/city's name, too. 4) You are childish the issue is resolved, get over it. 5) Surprisingly few say that Invesco is entitled to get what it paid for; 6) exactly two (of my e-mails) have made the point that they are grateful to any private company for offering any tax relief.

Criticism No. 2 parrots a local radio-talk-show host who typically finds himself in disagreement with The Post's editorial page.

Our supporters include several who say they will begin subscriptions to The Post. They say, 1) We are heroes restoring their faith in The Post and the press. 2) Only we have listened/heard, but our doing so gives hope that the public's voice may be heard by others now. 3) "Mile High" is the rightful name. They NEVER say Invesco. 4) Creeping commercialism has made them sick for a long time, now. Finally, someone is standing up for a sense of community. 5) The Post is showing great courage - have the further courage to stand up to whatever ridicule/heat/criticism you are experience because of your stand. 6) Steadily increasing numbers of out-of-state e-mailers who say they wish their newspapers/elected officials would take similar stands.

No. 4 parrots Ralph Nader weighing in Wednesday as part of his "Commercial Alert". He called it "truly an important act ... in the best tradition of American newspapers." He closes with a request that other newspapers, radio, and TV follow The Post's lead and adds this quote: "The Denver Post: Where tradition took a stand."

Favre: Some papers have been punished with the withdrawal of advertising for such controversies in the past. Has this happened? And if it should, how would the Post owners respond?

Guzzo: No repercussions so far. I am supremely confident that Dean Singleton will champion the newsroom's independence, as he has consistently done in my two years here.

Favre: What is your general feeling about the commercialization of sports and the role newspapers can or should play in this trend?

Guzzo: This may seem counter-intuitive, but I believe that commercialization has increased the cost to the fans, not reduced it. The effect of higher and higher revenue streams has been an upward spiral: higher and higher salaries, and higher and higher ticket prices, concession prices, etc. justified because of higher payrolls.

Today's pro sports owners typically have made their fortune elsewhere and do not run their sports teams as a regular business. They run them as civic gestures, or ego-satisfiers. Both require competitive teams, which in turn require better (higher-salaried) players. Today's owners make their money from sports teams by selling them at multiples of earlier valuations -based on multiples of revenues, not from operating profits. The NFL may be an exception here since every team ought to be profitable through revenue sharing.

What can/should newspapers do? What we do best: report. Who really benefits from the naming-rights deals? How was that deal struck? In Denver, the public essentially excused the quasi-government stadium district from its "fiduciary" responsibility of tax relief, but the Broncos were not at all interested in keeping the Mile High name if that meant (as it surely did) less revenue for the Broncos.

This reporting is tough work and it may not bear fruit. There are intermediate steps: Sports departments need a fans reporter -- one who reports from the consumer interest of the fans. Reporting would be on pocketbook issues, but also trends in televised sports, memorabilia, hobbies, fan behavior at games, etc. This is reporting, not advocacy. But the vantage point would be that of the fans. Our sports staffs spend much more time with the teams they cover than with the fans, our readers. That breeds the same conditions that we have seen when political writers seem to be closer to the people they cover than to the public. In short, we need vigilance in thinking along with the public.

Favre: Do you think this flare-up hurts the credibility of The Post, especially since your competition is using the Invesco name?

Guzzo: Assuming an 80 percent reader-approval rating, we may have a net gain in credibility. This is a case where other journalists demand that we defend our position more than readers do. But even then, the early response from other professional journalists has been as often congratulatory (including a couple of "I wish we woulds") than accusatory. In any event, we recognized the risk/reward ahead of time. Debate over ethical conduct/professional standards is always healthy.

Favre: What is the protocol you follow for ethical decision-making at The Post?

Guzzo: Unlike most papers, we have a written ethics policy. But like other written policies, it doesn't cover everything, and not situations like this. But we have a consultative newsroom, one where informed dissent is encouraged. In the end, the decision was mine. That followed deliberations, based on a dozen or more conversations with others who were not unanimous on the course we should take.