Channel 4 has jumped ahead of other Denver TV stations in fact-checking political ads so far this election cycle.

CBS4 has already aired segments analyzing 20 ads, over twice as many as 9News, its closest competitor among the four stations analyzing ads.

Sorry for the horse-race media criticism, but the numbers are worth pointing out, because Channel 4’s early analysis of the ads has undoubtedly been appreciated by regular people (none of whom read my blog), who’ve been trying to sort through all the political spots that have aired so early this election season.

“In the past, the ads didn’t start coming in nearly so soon or so often,” Denver Post Politics Editor Chuck Plunkett told me via email. “I’ve talked with national players who have visited Colorado this summer who couldn’t believe the number of ads that already were up and running.”

So it was a smart move for CBS4 to start dissecting the ads early, as part of its excellent “Reality Check” feature, led by “Political Specialist” Shaun Boyd. (Look for a post tomorrow with more on Boyd and Reality Check.)

“We’re committed to it,” said CBS4 News Director Tim Wieland. “We have a system in place that allows us to begin when the ads start rolling in. People are frustrated, and they want something that cuts through the BS. That’s the intent of this project.”

For its part, 9News is ramping up its ad-checking segments, called “Truth Tests,” with an idea that other media outlets may want to copy, straight up.

“Due to the sheer volume of political ads, 9NEWS has hired a team of three graduate students from the University of Denver to work as researchers for Truth Tests,” wrote 9News Political Reporter Brandon Rittiman, who’s the station’s primary Truth-Test reporter. “With the extra help, we hope to be able to tackle more ads than ever before this political season.”

9News, Denver’s NBC affiliate, will also work its newspaper partner, The Denver Post, according to Post Politics Editor Plunkett, with reporter Tim Hoover directing the coverage.

Channel 7’s “Truth Tracker” series is spearheaded by Producer/Presenter Marshall Zelinger, who’s scrutinized four ads so far and is scaling up the project now. Channel 7, Denver’s ABC affiliate, actually introduced the ad-checks to Denver TV viewers in the 1990’s, with reporter John Ferrugia’s “Truth Meter” series. It was later revived by Adam Schrager at 9News.

“I wanted to start a month earlier, because so many ads were rolling in,” Zelinger told me, adding that he plans to dedicate a significant amount of his time to Truth Tracker going forward, focusing on new ads and the ones airing the most.

For the first time, Fox 31, an independent station that’s become known as the local TV news leader in day-to-day political coverage, will produce a regular ad-check segment, called “Fact or Fiction,” anchored mostly by political reporter Eli Stokols. This might air once or twice weekly, Stokols emailed me, with a focus on “the most controversial ads and those airing the most frequently in Denver and around the state.”

Even though he’ll be fact-checking ads himself, Stokols is skeptical of his new endeavor, emailing me that, “especially now in this post-Citizens United world, [it] seems like a losing game of Whack-a-Mole — as soon as you finish checking one spot, it’s yesterday’s news and there are a dozen more popping up.”

“While campaigns are quick to cite such fact-checking spots in their effort to discredit opposition advertising, the campaigns we call out for blatant falsehoods don’t seem to care at all,” Stokols wrote. “And why should they? In a campaign that could see close to $1 billion in campaign spending, it’s inevitable that any TV ad, however false or misleading, will air hundreds of times, overwhelming any news outlet’s fact-check that might air a couple of times. Today’s campaign finance landscape enables political advertisements to have a reach that’s far wider than any fact-check — until, perhaps, the fact-check itself becomes part of a countering ad, just more noise in a never-ending echo chamber of allegations and attacks.”

Daily campaign-trail coverage and investigative journalism obviously had more of an impact than ad fact-checks in the last plagiarism-ridden election here, but political advertising can overwhelm all journalism, not just the stories fact-checking political ads. And the elucidation of facts can have an impact on the campaign trail, shaping the debate there, at press conferences and debates, for example, where they’re sometimes cited.

CBS4’s Boyd says in her normal reporting duties, covering events and such, she’ll often “turn a story and you don’t feel like you’ve influenced anyone.”

“Reality Check influences voters,” she told me. “I know that from the emails I receive.”

TV audiences pay attention to it.

“It’s the most popular thing we do in political coverage,” CBS4’s Wieland told me.

Maybe that’s because viewers don’t get enough day-to-day political journalism on local TV, like what you find in a newspaper, to get hooked on it. So the fact checking fills the void?

In any case, when you watch the ad-checks on TV, you can see why they work so well.

The ads themselves are usually already branded, if you will; they’re familiar to viewers. And the process of stopping and starting the ads, and analyzing segments with sharp graphics and simple analysis, is gripping, in its way.

The text-based fact-checking you’ve traditionally found in newspapers, without the video, doesn’t carry the same impact, at all.

The format for the fact-check segments at Denver TV stations varies a bit, but the basics are similar. Channel 7 provides a rating system with six options for the “facts” analyzed, including “misleading,” and “opinion.” 9News and CBS4 use a wider range of descriptions for the facts in question. And CBS4 concludes with a “Bottom Line” statement, which often offers a broader interpretation.

When Adam Schrager was at 9News, he actually taught people how to check ads themselves.

If you try it, you know how difficult it is to do. It’s hard to label the facts, found in a deliberately vague advertisement, as false or true, and partisans can almost always find something to get mad about.

But with an expanding sea of misinformation coming at us, the effort to shed nonpartisan light on political advertising is worth it. And the earlier the TV stations get started at it, like CBS4 did this election season, the better.

Rep. Mike Coffman is still mostly avoiding reporters, after he went into hiding following his comment at a fundraiser that he’s not sure Obama was born in the U.S. but, in any case, he believes Obama is not an American “in his heart.”

But Coffman is creeping into medialand ever so gently, with appearances on some conservative talk shows (though he’s ignoring Steve Kelley on KNUS). He was on Fox 31 in the morning as well, after the Obamacare decision, but 9News hasn’t been on his dance card.

Coffman’s brief interview on KLZ 560-AM’s Grassroots Radio Colorado July 5 shows what he gets when he cherry picks his questioners.

At one point in the interview he describes Democrats in the new CD 6 this way:

I feel pretty good about the race because I grew up in really what is the most Democrat part of the district, in original Aurora and northern Aurora. They are not traditional Democrats. They are blue-collar, working-class Democrats. They do not share the radical environmental views of the Democrat Party in Washington D.C. They are very pro-military. I have a military background. Probably, quite frankly, on some of the class warfare rhetoric, they’re probably going to buy on some of that, as well as certainly strong labor support. But they certainly don’t line up on every issue. And so there are some avenues in there.

(Listen to Coffman on Grassroots Radio Colorao 7-5-12.)

Anyone except the most sympathetic questioner would be curious about what aspects of the “class warfare rhetoric,” as Coffman puts it, appeal to Dems in his district.

Is he referring to the idea that tax breaks shouldn’t be extended for people earning over $250,000?

Is he referring to the notion that Social Security is more than the “ponzi scheme” that Coffman has said it is?

Does Coffman think Democrats in his district go for these types of things? If so, why?

We won’t be hearing answers to these questions as long as Coffman continues to sidestep real reporters, and his fans in the talk-radio world don’t make their shows more interesting by asking a follow-up question or two when Coffman is on the line.

During their final, good-bye broadcast Friday, Craig Silverman and Dan Caplis thanked Rep. Mike Coffman for “being a real friend of the show” and for being “accessible.”

Caplis told Coffman, “You never ever ducked us,” which definitely ain’t what 9News and other media types have been saying lately about Coffman’s refusal to answer questions about his statement that Obama is not an American in his heart. (Coffman’s dodgings led Democrats to mock him on a website, AskCoffmanAnything.com, unveiled today.)

If I were Silverman, I couldn’t stomach complimenting Coffman for his grand openness when he’s in the midst of hiding from most reporters in town.

I might even ask him, “Hey Mike, any plans to talk to Kyle Clark at 9News? Or Steve Kelley at KNUS?” (Coffman has been refusing to talk to both.)

Wouldn’t it be great if media types stood up for journalism by asking those types of questions of politicians who are hiding from other reporters? So what if they’re loose competitors. Media figures build up their own platforms nowadays by promoting their competition. And in the case of Silverman, he’s on his way out of the biz anyway.

But Silverman took the insular route, thanking Coffman for being “good enough to come on our show to break your silence” about his birther statement.

Coffman was on Silverman’s show over a month ago, and questions have piled up since then, including a troubling question flowing from Coffman’s comment on KOA radio that his birther comment has been hyped by journalists.

Coffman attacked journalists in a similar vein Friday, telling Silverman that the press “won’t care” about Nancy Pelosi’s remark Friday that Republicans are attacking Attorney General Eric Holder as part of a GOP voter suppression effort.

“That’s unfortunate that she made that statement,” Coffman said. “Of course, it won’t resonate like the statement I made, I’m sure. [Laughs.] The press won’t care about that.”

Coffman is right that Pelosi left the door open for more questions about the GOP’s motivations in attacking Holder, but does that mean Coffman’s birther moment was overplayed by journalists?

Coffman thinks he’s being unfairly targeted for his birther comments, while Pelosi gets a pass.

As if it’s unfair for journalists to simply want to talk to him about it?

What’s a reporter supposed to do when Coffman will only talk to conservative talk-radio hosts like Caplis and Silverman?

Look the other way and forget about the story because Coffman wants it to go away?

I hope not.

Here’s a partial transcript of the appearance of Rep. Mike Coffman on KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman Show Friday, June 23, 2012.

Caplis: …A real friend of the show, a guy I respect so much, Rep. Mike Coffman kind enough to spend a minute with us. How you doing Congressman?

Coffman: Well, not too good. I mean, I’m in my office getting ready to leave and listen to Caplis and Silverman on my way home, and somebody just told me that this is the last show. And it breaks my heart. Is this true?

Silverman: Look at the bright side. It’s another three job losses under the Obama Administration.

Coffman: [Laughs] Oh boy.

Silverman: …You were accesible. That latest controversy, you were good enough to come on our show to break your silence…. I can’t believe what Nancy Pelosi said today, that the reason the House Republicans are going after Eric Holder is because you are a bunch of racists. Aren’t you offended by that?

Coffman: The reason we are going after Eric Holder is we have a dead law-enforcement agent from the United States. That’s unfortunate that she made that statement. Of course, it won’t resonate like the statement I made, I’m sure. [Laughs.] The press won’t care about that. You know, it’s a tough times for the country, and you all helped us navigate it. I loved your show, and I always listened to it when I was driving, when it was on. And I’m really saddened to hear about this. It’s gonna be tough on the Denver Metro area.

Caplis: …It’s been great having you as part of the show. You never ever ducked us. It’s also really been fun watching you emerge as an effective and influential Congressman. And it’s just been great… Craig, I don’t know whether you’ve made your decision but I am going to stay on air, Congressman. It’s just a matter now of working out the details. So hopefully you’ll continue to be a guest.

Coffman: I certainly hope so. But you two were a great team and I love it. And whatever you do, I’m sure you’ll be very successful at.

Mike Coffman’s been dodging reporters since his birther moment last month, when he said he didn’t know if Obama “was born in the United States of America,” but he did know that “in his heart, he’s not an American.”

Coffman’s media avoidance tactics have turned his apology into a dramatic multi-part series.

So you’d hope any media figure interviewing Coffman on any topic would bring up the birther subject to help clarify things for the public, not to mention us media watchers.  You’d hope so, but you also know some media types would proudly and arrogantly ignore it.

But KOA radio’s Steffan Tubbs didn’t shy away from the topic this morning, even though Coffman was on his show to talk about Eric Holder.

Tubbs: Ah, I hate to bring it up, but I have to because we haven’t talked to you about it.  I mean, are you over this whole Obama controversy?  Has that gone by the way-side?  Was it made too big of a deal?  Were you taken out of context with the un-American comment with the President?

Coffman: [nervous chuckling] I’d say all of the above.  What I found out, certainly, is that when you make a mistake like that and you’re off message, it certainly hurts.  And obviously, be more careful going forward, much more measured in my comments so I can’t be misinterpreted, and also to, I think, clearly be more professional in my demeanor, because the American people have to make a decision in this election coming up – on president, on my race, on other races.  This is such a critical time for the country. I think we’re at a tipping point.    And we need to stick with the issues.

I would have preferred if Tubbs hadn’t told Coffman that he hated to bring up Coffman’s birther moment, as if there were something wrong with questioning Coffman about it, but, still, Tubbs’ questioning of Coffman, however short, shows, again, that KOA radio’s newsroom is a serious spot news operation and is worth listening to.

Tubbs’ questioning of Coffman sheds new light on Coffman’s thinking on the matter, illuminating that Coffman thinks:

1. He’s over the controversy.
2. It’s gone by the way-side, he thinks.
3. It was made too big a deal of.
4. And Coffman thinks he was taken out of context.

How many follow up questions for Coffman flow from this? Many, to put it mildly. So there’s plenty of material for journalists to work with when Coffman comes out of hiding again and wants too talk about something that’s on his agenda, like he did on KOA today.

After Rep. Mike Coffman told supporters that “in his heart,” Obama is “just not an American,” some in the media debated whether Coffman’s statement, which he apologized for, was 1) a departure from Coffman’s image as a moderate or 2) a continuation of his alignment with extremists and fringe causes.

On abortion, the topic of today’s blog post, reporters should note that it’s clearly the latter. That would be number two, above.

In its latest comments on Coffman, Colorado Right to Life’s blog stated in 2010 update, that Coffman is “on record supporting Personhood and is on record as Pro-Life with no exceptions.”

Earlier this year, Colorado Right to Life Vice President Leslie Hanks told me that “no exceptions” means abortion would not be allowed in the case of rape and incest.

Coffman has opposed abortion even in the case of rape and incest going back to at least 2008, according to the Colorado Right to Life website.

For example, in 2008 Colorado Right to Life complained to Coffman after hearing him say, on the Caplis and Silverman show, that he favored allowing abortion in the case of rape and incest.

Coffman subsequently sent a letter to Caplis and Silverman, and to Colorado Right to Life, clarifying that he is opposed to abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.  Here’s the story, as told on Colorado Right to Life’s website:

Last week, while appearing on the Caplis & Silverman radio show (630 KHOW, Denver), Congressional candidate Mike Coffman was heard to say that he did not oppose abortion in cases of rape or incest. This sent CRTL and many other pro-lifers into a tizzy, because it went against what Mike had pledged in his Candidate Survey, as well as what we all thought we knew about Mike’s beliefs.

When contacted about this, Mike immediately expressed surprise that he’d said any such thing. He thinks he may have gotten confused and said the opposite of what he meant. While with many candidates, we might suspect evasion, this didn’t seem to be the case with Mike. He has written to attempt to clarify with Dan Caplis, so no one will misunderstand. Here is his note (copied to CRTL):

Dan,

First of all, thanks so much for your help with my campaign and for inviting me on your show. During the debate, Craig Silverman was questioning me on the issue of abortion. My response was focused on arguing that Roe v Wade was bad law. During that exchange, Craig asked me about the issue of rape and incest. Apparently, my answer came across as supporting abortions under a rape and incest exception. I absolutely do not believe in that.

Dan, I would deeply appreciate it if, during your show, you could state that I wanted to make sure that my position was clear, unequivocally, that I oppose abortion in all cases of rape and incest. I believe that all life is equally sacred irregardless of how it came into being.

Thanks again, Mike Coffman

It takes a big man to admit such a mistake. And Mike Coffman’s strong relationship with the pro-life community over many years is obviously important enough to him that he wanted to make this correction/clarification despite the fact that he surely has Colorado’s 6th District race locked up and will almost certainly be one of Colorado’s newly elected Congressmen in 2009.

This is great news for unborn children!

The above exchange came after Coffman, who gave $75 to the Colorado Right to Life Committee in 2008, according to campaign donation records on TRACER, defeated Ted Harvey and Wil Armstrong in a tough primary battle to represent the ultra-conservative 6th Congressional district. Now the 6th is considered much more moderate.

During the 2008 primary, Colorado Right to Life wrote of Coffman:

In a previous blog post, we reported that we believed both Sen. Ted Harvey and Sec. State Mike Coffman hold uncompromised positions on Personhood and Life issues, according to the CRTL candidate questionnaire. Sadly, we must correct this information.

We now know that Sec. State Mike Coffman is the only candidate for the GOP 6th District Congressional primary who holds uncompromised views on abortion, and the only candidate who has promised not to continue supporting compromised legislation….

Mike Coffman also has a decades-long history (20 years or more) of not just support, but active involvement in the pro-life community, over and above what would be expected of any typical Republican official.

Mike Coffman has been a good and consistent friend to CRTL for many years, up to and including the last couple of years when even CRTL’s strongest legislative supporters (including Harvey) found excuses not to attend CRTL events.

Coffman has yet to comment this election cycle on his abortion stance, and he hasn’t said whether he’ll support this year’s personhood measure.

Obviously, these are issues that reporters should pursue, assuming Coffman talks to reporters again, as he used to do frequently, before he made his comments about Obama’s heart.

Just when you thought birthers were running away from their inner birtherness, a new birther jumps out of the closet on the op-ed pages of The Denver Post today.

That would be the ever-rational Mike Rosen, of the Mike Rosen Show on KOA.

Rosen wrote a column today, titled “Mike Coffman was right about Obama in the first place,” defending Coffman’s statement, first aired on 9News May 16, that he doesn’t know if Obama is a U.S. citizen or if our president is an American “in his heart.”

The funny part is that, even as Rosen defends Coffman for saying these things, Rosen is still birtherphobic when it comes to accepting that both he and Coffman are birthers.

Rosen wrote: “To set the record straight, in his remarks at the Elbert County Fairgrounds on May 12, Coffman did not challenge the legitimacy of Obama’s natural-born citizenship. This was not, as 9News falsely captioned it on-screen in its slanted report, ‘Coffman’s Birther Moment.'”

(Incidentally, 9News acknowledged its story was stimulated by a tip from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.) In fact, Coffman separated himself from ‘birther’ activists who express certainty that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. On that matter, Coffman said, ‘I don’t know.’ Neither do I. I’m not certain Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud, but I’m suspicious.”

Mike, you don’t know Obama is a citizen, and you still think his birth certificate might be a fraud. If you hold these beliefs, you can’t say, categorically, that the President is a citizen. That means you’re a birther.

And the Oxford American Dictionary agrees with me, defining a birther as:

“a conspiracy theorist who challenges President Obama’s US birth certificate.”

At risk of repeating myself, but I can’t resist: By definition, if you don’t know for sure that Obama’s birth certificate is valid, and you don’t know whether he was born in our country, then you’re “a conspiracy theorist who challenges President Obama’s US birth certificate.”

Thus, I hate to tell you, Mike, you’re a big old birther just like Coffman was during his “birther moment,” as correctly labeled by 9News.

It was “Coffman’s birther moment,” because Coffman told 9News that he misspoke. If you believe Coffman’s apology, it was Coffman’s moment of birtherness.

9News didn’t label its video “Birther Coffman,” or something like that, which would have unfairly attributed permanence to Coffman’s birther statement. 9News was accurate.

It’s true, to be fair, that if you research this topic, you’ll find different definitions of the word “birther.” Some claim the word means an absolute belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. But legitimate sources, like the one above, support my view and 9News’ use of the word.

But you can be sure of one thing. You’ll find plenty of birthers who will argue about how they define themselves. And they’ll cite seventeen million pieces of evidence to support one definition of “birther,” corroborated by nine million pieces of missing evidence.

Other birthers will find ancient newspaper clips and numbers to support their position on “birther.”

And the birthers will argue about what it means to be a “birther.”

But there’s one thing they will agree on. Like Rosen and Coffman (for a moment), they’re at least not yet sure that Obama is a natural-born citizen. They’re birthers.

KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show featured Mike Coffman for a long segment yesterday, talking about his statement at a GOP fundraiser that Obama “in his heart” is “just not an American.”

Coffman happily answered Dan Caplis’ questions after his spokeswoman, Danielle Adams, told The Denver Post Coffman had nothing to say for a Post article about the “possibility of repercussions and challenges to his campaign.”

(Nothing to say? Coffman? You’d think The Post wouldn’t lie there and accept this response, but that’s what it did, running a tiny sentence in paragraph 15 about Coffman’s rude treatment of the state’s leading news outlet. When will The Post show its loyal readers that the newspaper hates it when public figures blow off its reporters?)

If it makes The Post feel better, Coffman is also ignoring KNUS’ Kelley and Company, a morning radio show that’s getting more conservative by the minute. KNUS’ Steve Kelley said today on air that Coffman, a frequent guest on the show, did not return calls (plural) to be on the program.

Under soft questioning from KHOW’s Dan Caplis, with Craig Silverman away for the day, Coffman reiterated his apology for the birtherish statement. Coffman did not do so in the automaton-fashion he used the other night when confronted by 9News’ Kyle Clark, who deserves a lot of credit for tracking down Coffman after he’d been ignoring his interview requests as well.

A progressive website, Think Progress, pointed out, in a blog post titled Birther Congressman Confirms That He Only Walked Back His Comments ‘For Political Reasons’, that Coffman acknowledged during the KHOW interview that “to some extent” Coffman actually believes Obama is not an American “in his heart.” Think Progress’ Scott Keyes wrote:

The hosts told Coffman that a gaffe in Washington “is when somebody tells the truth” before asking the Colorado Republican, “Were you just at that moment speaking what was in your heart and are you now feeling you need to walk it back for political reasons?” Coffman conceded that this was the case — “to some extent that’s true” — before explaining that his main regret was talking about the issue because birtherism is a “horrible issue” for Republican.

Think Progress also spotlighted Coffman’s statement, in the KHOW interview, praising birthers:

Later, Coffman praised those who don’t believe President Obama was born in the United States. “[Issues are] going to determine this election, not focusing on the birther question. God bless people that do that. I understand their passion.”

Yesterday’s Coffman interview on KHOW, as well as his response to 9News’ questions this week, shows the value, from a public-interest perspective, of going the extra mile to get public figures to air out their views on topics they’d rather dismiss with a simple sorry-I-misspoke soundbite.

Journalists shouldn’t settle for this treatment during the election season which is upon us.

In 9News’ story yesterday about Rep. Mike Coffman’s statement that “in his heart,” Obama is “just not an American,” Political Analyst Floyd Ciruli was paraphrased as saying Coffman’s comment is a “blow to his moderate image.”

I’m tainted, I know, and possibly unable to fathom the mainstream image of Coffman, but my perception is that Coffman is pretty far to the right on the political spectrum, a far cry from a “moderate.”

So I called Ciruli to find out if, indeed, he thought Coffman had a “moderate image.”

Ciruli said the 9News’ paraphrase was accurate, but his view wasn’t based on any polling he’d seen on Coffman.

“Coffman’s major image comes from some his statewide offices, which have essentially been of the administrative type and have not led him to be known as a person of intensely right-wing views,” Ciruli told me. “He’s been the Secretary of State. He’s been the Treasurer. Those are administrative jobs that don’t lead you to have a particular image.”

Ciruli also said his view of Coffman’s image is partially based on the fact that Coffman replaced Tom Tancredo.

“And under those circumstances, you’re always a moderate,” Ciruli said, adding also that Coffman is “not really a favorite of the Republican establishment.”

I told Ciruli that I hadn’t seen any polling either, but I did notice that Coffman repeatedly called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” that he supported Colorado’s personhood amendment, that he wanted to pull the Peace Corps out of China, and that he said the flat tax has “tremendous value.” (I forgot to mention that Coffman supported Rick Perry for President and Paul Ryan for Vice President.)

“I don’t disagree with you,” Ciruli told me, adding that Coffman’s immigration views are out of the moderate range.

“They are relatively new issues,” Ciruli said. “They reflect to some extent his new environment, which is a very conservative Congress.”

“I assume [the Obama comment] was a faux pas, and he wisely apologized very quickly,” Ciruli told me, pointing out that Coffman’s mostly Arapahoe-County district is one of the most competitive in the country.

“He had not apologized when I did my interview last night at 5:30,” said Ciruli. “I specifically asked because I thought, my gosh, he should get out from under this, unless this is actually what he thinks, and he did.”

I can think of a couple reasons why Mitt Romney chose to take questions from local TV reporters and KOA radio hosts yesterday, while blowing off all those “print” journalists in Denver.

The most obvious reason is that Romney thinks local TV news is watched by the swing voters he needs to win. This approach would be in line with what he did when he came to Colorado the day before the GOP caucus. Then, his target was Republican caucus goers. So Romney blew off all real-life journalists, TV and print, and took loving questions only from friendly, conservative talk-radio hosts, whose listeners were likely to be heading out to caucuses. So Romney got to talk directly to his target audience.

An alternative explanation for Romney’s local TV tour yesterday is that he was scared pesky print reporters would ask him tough questions while mayhem-and-fluff loving local TV news journalists would have one eye on the incoming rainstorm and therefore be unable and/or uninterested in asking him substantive questions.

If this was Team Romney’s thinking, they got it wrong. Denver’s local TV news didn’t suck up and ask softballs. They asked real questions about real issues in Colorado, including the most obvious question, given the drama in the State Legislature, about his view on civil unions.

CBS4 reporter Shaun Boyd introduced her piece by saying, “As you can see, Romney seemed a bit flustered by the questions viewers posted on our Facebook page, trying to steer the conversation back to topics he was comfortable with.”

I would say Romney was less flustered and more irritated with Boyd’s news judgment after she posed questions about civil unions (answer: no), college-tuition reductions for undocumented high school graduates (no), and medical marijuana (no).

Sounding like Colorado GOP chair Ryan Call who recently said birth-control issues were “small issues,” Romney told Boyd:

Romney: “Aren’t there issues of significance that you’d like to talk about?

Boyd: This is a significant issue in Colorado.

Romney: The economy. The economy. The economy. Jobs. The need to put people back to work. The challenges of Iran. We have enormous issues that we face, but you want to talk about, go ahead.”

Boyd picked up where she had left off, telling Romney matter-of-factly, “Marijuana.”

And Romney said, “I oppose the legalization of marijuana….”

Boyd, along with her counterparts at Fox 31, 9News, and 7News, all asked Romney serious questions, perhaps the kind he wasn’t expecting from local TV reporters.

I’m hoping the tough questioning continues through the election season because it’s informative and it makes interesting television, as opposed to happy-talk questions like, “Hey, how’s your dog.”

But I guess in Romney’s case, that would be considered a hardball query as well.

We’ll be hearing a lot about Medicare this election season, and reporters should study up on some of the expected flashpoints, so they can challenge candidates who try to deceive us.

A case in point is Rep. Scott Tipton’s appearance on 9News’ YourShow Sunday.

“When we’re talking about health care, I think we need to get the facts on the table,” Tipton told YourShow host Brandon Rittiman. “The President, this administration, and the people who support them voted to take away $575 billion dollars out of Medicare, hurting our senior citizens.”

As I’ve reported before, nonpartisan fact checkers have found this to be mostly or completely false. Politifact found the statement, “The new health care law ‘will cut $500 billion from Medicare. That will hurt the quality of our care,'” to be deep in its “mostly false” category, which is as false as its ratings go. Fact checkers at the Washington Post also found that the $500 billion is saved in Medicare efficiencies, which are “wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries.”

If you read the different analyses of this issue, the key point is that there’s no evidence that the $575 billion (It’s actually $500 billion) saved from Medicare will hurt seniors, while it’s clear that some services will be improved.

To be fair, Obamacare critics point to some element of uncertainty about how the cost savings will play out in the future, but they can’t point to a specific example of how seniors’ healthcare services would be diminished in any way. There’s no meat behind the allegation.

Tipton raised the $500 billion figure during his 2010 campaign, as noted by Pueblo Chieftain reporter Peter Roper, who handled Tipton’s accusation by adding a factual statement after Tipton’s allegation.

From an Oct. 29, 2010 article:

“…[Tipton] repeated his charge that Salazar and Democrats want to cut $500 billion from Medicare — a cut that Tipton said would hurt seniors. That part of the legislation calls for reducing the growth in Medicare expenses by $500 billion over 10 years by eliminating fraud and waste.” [BigMedia emphasis]

I’d go further, if I were reporting on Tipton, and write categorically that 1) nonpartisan fact checkers have found the allegation to be mostly or completely false, and 2) Republicans cannot offer specific examples of how seniors will be hurt due to Medicare cost-saving measures.

I’d also ask Tipton to provide specifics and report his response.