Raj Chohan, a reporter for Channel 4 News (CBS4), is leaving the station to become a lawyer.

He and 9News’ Adam Schrager are known in political circles for, among other things, their on-air fact checking of political ads during election cycles. 9News’ ad analyses are called “Truth Tests.” CBS4’s are called “Reality Checks.”

CBS4 doesn’t plan on dropping Reality Check, which is a great public service given the overwhelming power of political ads on television. The on-air fact checks are some of the best political coverage we see on local TV news shows. And, strangely enough, they’re popular. The big challenge for journalists covering politics on local TV news is to find ways to make important political information engaging enough so viewers don’t change the channel. The ad checks are one way to do this.

Chohan will continue hosting KBDI’s flagship public affairs show, Colorado Inside Out, which airs Friday at 8 p.m. on Channel 12.

Chohan’s wife, CBS4 reporter Shaun Boyd, may replace him as the lead reporter for the “Reality Check” series.  

In an email to me, Chohan responded to a few questions about his departure from CBS4.

·         Is it true that you’re leaving Channel 4 to practice law? Why?

I will be leaving Channel 4 after the May ratings book to become a lawyer.  I expect to graduate in May with a J.D. from DU. I will spend the summer preparing for the July bar exam.  I have accepted an offer to join the Denver office of a national law firm.

·         Will you be leaving Colorado  Inside Out?

I expect to continue hosting Colorado Inside Out.  It is a unique show and one of the best parts of my work week.  KBDI has expressed an interest in my continued tenure there and I am certainly inclined to stick with it.

·         Will anyone be doing Reality Check in your absence? If not, why?

CBS 4 is in the process of identifying a replacement for Reality Check.  The inside scoop is that my wife, Shaun Boyd, may take it over.  She is an excellent reporter and would do a great job with the franchise.  She has been approached by the news director, Tim Wieland, about this possibility.  She has not yet made a final decision.

·         Do you think you’ll go back to journalism someday?

I love the biz, but I don’t expect to return in any full-time capacity.  For my family, the journalism business has become too unstable.  News outlets are making less money and making tough business decisions to remain viable.  There are a lot of talented journalists on the street looking for work.  Local TV stations across the nation have been cutting back staff, newspapers have been taking a beating, and the new model of journalism has not yet developed enough for me to feel secure in this business over the long term.  Several years ago, my wife and I saw the storm clouds gathering over this business.  We decided to set-up an exit strategy before things got too bad.  We have two young children and could not risk the insecurity of a business in flux. I am excited about my new career and look forward to practicing law.  I hope to keep some presence in the news community via Colorado Inside Out, perhaps even a blog or maybe a column. 

·         What will you miss most about leaving journalism?

I will miss covering politics.  It is a fascinating time to be doing news.  This is a wonderful business for information junkies who enjoy learning how the world works and contributing to the discussion.  No matter what the economic realities of the business are, I hope enthusiastic aggressive journalists will continue to come to the business.  It is a remarkable thing to be able to do for a living. 

·         What will you miss least?

What I will miss least:  I never enjoyed “death patrol.”  This is when reporters show up on doorsteps on the worst day of a person’s life - when they have lost someone very close.  At times these stories can offer compelling insights into the human condition.  However, most of the time they are an unwelcome intrusion into a family’s grief.  The other thing I won’t miss is working holidays.
 

The Colorado Independent points out that Senate Candidate Jane Norton is still not talking to The Denver Post. Today’s Post article, about ads attacking her, quotes a Norton spokesperson.

This prompted me to find out the last time that Norton gave a direct word-from-mouth-to-reporter quote to The Post. In a November 11, 2009, story, The Post quoted Norton giving a speech at a Republican forum. The words went from Norton’s mouth to the ears of a reporter. But this doesn’t count, because it wasn’t a two-way communication, as far as I can tell.

So you have to go all the way back to October 4, 2009, to find a Post article containing words that came directly from Norton’s mouth into a reporter’s ears, in a two-way conversation. In that Oct. 4 article, Norton told The Post she doubts that her decision, as head of the CO health department under Bill Owens, to cut family-planning money from Planned Parenthood will be a campaign issue. She told The Post: “I think the issue in this campaign is all about the debt and the economy. It’s all about big government.”

I calculate, then, that it’s been exactly 144 days since Norton has been quoted directly in The Post. That’s over 20 weeks. I’ll been counting the days, weeks, and months, and I’m hoping The Post finally runs a words-from-Norton’s-mouth quote in the newspaper soon. I’ll post an update with each time another quote-less week passes.

Just as I’m ragging on The Post for its passive coverage of Norton’s Senate campaign, I find that FOX News has interviewed Norton yesterday on its national TV show “America’s Newsroom with Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum” during a segment titled “Martha’s Midterm Madness.”
FOX failed to ask Norton about some of her recent eye-brow-raising statements such as: 
·         Why does she favor the elimination of the Department of education?
·         Why does she support a national sales tax and flat tax, and why does she think a “simplified flat tax with exemptions for mortgages and charity” would be more viable than a pure flat tax?
·         Why does she think health care reform is unconstitutional?
·         On what basis does she think that the “rights of terrorists are more important in this administration than the lives of American citizens”?
·         If she’s never been a lobbyist, as she’s claimed, what was she doing from 1994-1999 as head of the lobbying department of Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) and why would an MGMA spokesman tell the Colorado Independent that Norton headed the organization’s lobbying department?
 

Still, FOX gets an itsy bitsy amount of credit for interviewing Norton at all, because you never know what a political candidate will say when questioned by a live reporter on a live broadcast, no matter how soft ball the questions are. And sure enough, the FOX interview has spurred some public debate, which is what interviews and journalism is supposed to inspire.

I mean, look at what happened to Sarah Palin under the gentle questioning of Katie Couric. That’s why all live interviews are in the public interest to some degree.
But you expect journalists to ask about the tough stuff and pick up on the subtleties, and to do this, journalists have to do homework. In this case, it’s pretty clear Martha MacCallum didn’t.
MacCallum did not return an email message seeking comment.
 

If you follow the news in The Denver Post, you’re not following Senate candidate Jane Norton very much.

Well, I take that back. You’re actually following Norton in The Post via her spokespeople and news releases—not through words that come out of her mouth in response to questions by journalists.  

She’s been quoted directly (words from mouth) in just four articles in The Post since she launched her campaign over five months ago.

Instead of talking to reporters, Norton is giving them spokespeople, written statements, and news releases, which were used in 10 additional articles.

Since Norton’s campaign announcement Sept. 15, ten of 14 articles in the print edition of The Post, plus an additional half dozen posts on The Post’s political blog The Spot, relied on this type of controlled information for quotes.

While The Post published only 14 articles with any type of statement (direct quote, spokesperson, or news release) connected to Norton, it ran a total of 22 with Bennet statements and 18 with Romanoff statements. (Bennet has been quoted directly in an additional 20 articles about his Senate activities.) Bennet and Romanoff were each quoted directly (words from mouth to reporter) in 11 print articles.

So it looks like The Post is giving Norton a free ride, not asking her enough questions directly, printing her news releases, her spokespeople’s statements, and generally covering her less than the other candidates in the race.

Of course, this runs counter to what we expect from journalists—to provide citizens with the information they need to make informed decisions about candidates and policy matters.  To do this effectively, reporters should try hard to interview candidates directly and ask questions.

Staff at The Post was busy or on other assignments yesterday and this morning—and unable to comment on my analysis of their coverage of Colorado’s Senate race.

Now, you may be thinking, perhaps Norton is just going through a dry spell in terms of newsworthiness—and reporters don’t need to be wasting time talking directly to her.

But no, during those five months, she’s made a string of unusual and newsworthy statements that definitely merit investigation by Post reporters.

This month, the Ft. Morgan Times reported that Norton supports a “national sales tax” and a “flat tax,” and she thinks a “simplified flat tax with exemptions only for mortgages and charity” might be viable (Ft. Morgan Times 2/9/10).  The Post did not address this statement about radical restructuring of the U.S. tax code on its news pages, though Mike Littwin included it in a column (2/19/2010).

Norton stated that the federal government has no role in health care, presumably including Medicare and Medicaid. The Denver Post’s politics and policy bog, The Spot, reported (1/13/2010) that Norton made this comment, and a statement by Norton was posted stating that she wants to protect Medicare. But the candidate did not answer questions about it directly. Also, The Post has not questioned Norton on her apparent statement that health care reform is not constitutional.

Norton apparently listened to supporters say President Obama is a Muslim, without making any effort to correct them.  And she stated that the “rights of terrorists are more important in this administration than the lives of American citizens.” This statement never appeared on the news pages of The Post, but, once again, was included in a Mike Littwin column (1/10/2010).

Norton reportedly stated that she favors abolishing the Department of Education. To its credit, The Post (12/20/2009) tried to obtain a response from Norton on this topic, but her campaign declined comment. There’s been no follow-up in the newspaper.

During a Colorado Springs radio interview (KVOR 740 AM) on 1/26/2010, she stated, “On the lobbyist thing, I’ve never been a lobbyist.” The Post didn’t pursue this issue, but the Rocky Mountain News identified Norton as a lobbyist years ago in an article (3/4/2001), reporting that Norton “worked previously as a medical lobbyist.”  Her lobbying history has been reported elsewhere as well. And she declined to talk to a Post reporter for a story about her ties to high-powered Washington lobbyists.

(Note to Post readers: Who would think that opinion columnist Mike Littwin would scoop The Post’s entire news department twice in about six months! He’s offering up important news about Jane Norton that you find nowhere else in The Post. Maybe he should try interviewing Norton himself.)

What’s a Post reporter to do about this? Here are my suggestions:

First, the most obvious one is that reporters should seek comments directly from Norton more often. The public interest isn’t served by repeatedly quoting spokespeople and written statements. We rely on journalists to ask candidates tough or uncomfortable questions, with follow-up queries, if needed. If Norton or her spokespeople refuse comment, The Post should inform readers of this, as The Post did on one occasion.

The Post should offer coverage of different perspectives on why Norton doesn’t want to talk to Post reporters, if reporters think she’s avoiding them. Let’s hear from experts about her strategy. At her last major news conference, for example, she answered only one question before departing, and at the last Republican forum on Feb. 21, where you’d certainly expect to find journalists, she didn’t show up at all.

If necessary, The Post should track Norton at campaign appearances and confront her in person with questions.

I understand that reporters are busy doing seventeen things at once, but quality coverage of Colorado’s U.S. Senate race is a big priority.

For more details on this topic, read Rocky Mountain Media Watch’s report, “Jane’s Free Ride: The Denver Post’s Limited Coverage of U.S. Senate Candidate Jane Norton.”

Jane’s Free Ride:

 The Denver Post’s Limited Coverage of U.S. Senate Candidate Jane Norton
 February 24, 2010 
 By Jason Salzman, Rocky Mountain Media Watch
 Summary: Since September 15, 2009, when Jane Norton launched her campaign for U.S. Senate, she’s been quoted directly in just four staff-written Denver Post news stories. Instead of direct quotes, Norton’s staff offers reporters spokespeople, statements, and news releases. Sen. Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff have each been quoted in more than twice as many articles—even though Norton has made a string of unusual comments that merit further investigation by journalists. The Post should—more frequently—insist on interviewing Norton directly, and reject comments by her spokespeople. If Norton refuses to be interviewed, The Post should inform readers of this, as it did once since Norton announced her campaign. The public interest is served when reporters question candidates directly.