You find people on both the far left and right of the political spectrum who couldn’t care less about the health of mainstream journalism or its coverage of stuff like elections.

But most political junkies agree with what Bob Moore, editor of the Coloradoan, told me: “My concern is whether the traditional media is in a position to do the election justice. There just aren’t enough eyeballs on these races to do the critical analysis.”
 

So how are the local journalists who still have jobs going innovate to cover the elections with fewer resources?

Moore, who’s assigned himself to the 4^th Congressional District Race, said he’s had preliminary discussions with Adam Schrager at 9News about working with the University of Colorado and Colorado State University to do quick fact-checks of political advertisements.
 

“We expect a lot of sketchy ads this fall,” Moore said, “and there just aren’t enough bodies to get this basic political journalism done.”
Many of the bodies still practicing journalism can be found at The Denver Post. What kind of coverage can we expect from the state’s number-one newspaper?
 

“For print, for the mother ship, if you will, I really think the way we covered the Udall-Schaffer campaign in 2008 is the kind of model that I would like to continue this time around,” Political Editor Curtis Hubbard at The Post told me.  “By that I mean, really trying to take …bigger picture’ looks and give readers a sense of where the candidates are on the issues and profiling them in that capacity and trying not to get distracted by the miscellaneous objects campaigns will throw up every day.”
 

Hubbard said he’s also considering finding citizen journalists to illuminate political events in new ways. One possibility is to “tap into people who might have access to events that we don’t have access to.”
 

I haven’t yet seen evidence of systemic media bias at local Fox TV stations, like there is at the national level. Mostly, their reporting mirrors the kind of mayhem-and-fluff focus you see at other local outlets.

 But you have to wonder about bias when you see something like this:

Last Monday, Fox 31 did a report on the possibly racially targeted assaults that have occurred on 16th St. Mall.
 

What if Richard Heene had put a puppy in his experimental balloon, instead of pretending his kid Falcon was in it, as cops claim he did?

The puppy ride would still have made national and probably international news. TV news crews would definitely have dispatched helicopters to chase Heene’s balloon. The media drama would have stretched on for days and weeks.

Heene could have said he put his unruly puppy in the balloon basket to keep him contained while he worked on the rig, and it simply got away from him.

The puppy couldn’t have spilled the beans to authorities, and the pet would have looked really good on national morning news shows, wagging its tail and such. (I’ve seen thousands of pets on local TV news, and not one was so nervous it vomited, like Falcon did on national TV.)

Heene could have pulled off the entire stunt without telling anyone but the mute puppy.

Maybe this sounds crazy, but how could the cops have exposed his lie?

Of course, there’s the risk that the balloon crashes and the puppy dies, and then Heene may have faced animal-abuse charges. And even if the puppy survived, he may still have been held responsible for the emergency-response costs and other damages.

So here’s another option.

In his bizarre book, How You Can Manipulate the Media, David Alexander describes how an activist sent out a news release threatening to “pour gasoline on a puppy and set it afire” to protest the war in Central America.

You can imagine the response. Tons of local TV coverage. Letters to the editor. Protests by animal rights groups. Police involvement.

But no one had any recourse because, as Alexander writes, it’s not against the law to threaten to harm an animal.

The protestor timed the burning of the puppy to coincide with the 5 p.m news, and several stations were broadcasting live when he emerged from his house with the puppy in hand, according to Alexander. The protestor denounced the media for ignoring atrocities in Central America and for caring more about animals than people. Then he announced that he would not burn his puppy after all. Media hoax over.

So, it might have been smarter for the media-crazed Heene to have simply threatened to send a puppy up in his balloon, and you can bet he’d have gotten a lot of media attention, especially with recent cuts in news departments forcing journalists to rely more and more on the simple stuff.

Politicians and activist groups use pets to attract reporters all the time, and it works. Pets excel at being cute and unpredictable, and have universal interest, making them staples of infotainment news. You recall right-extremists brought a live, snorting pig down to the Colorado Capitol earlier this year to protest President Obama’s alleged “pork” in his stimulus bill, ignoring the fact the fact that the economy was in free fall and his bill would create 3.5 million jobs by funding roads, schools, high-speed rails, home weatherization, and more things America desperately needs. Alexander’s book with the story about the threat to burn the puppy was published by right-wing Paladin Press, but the truth is that all kinds of lefties and righties and politicians rely on media stunts to get attention.

So maybe Heene should have taken a page from protestors and politicians and found a way to use an animal to draw attention to himself and his balloon. 

He could have exploited the media’s growing fixation on mayhem and fluff, and he would have gotten the news coverage he wanted and not be in so much trouble now.

I’m waiting for the day that a local TV station leads its late-night “newscast” with the weather segment. Yes, I know, this already happens whenever a small storm can possibly be hyped into a big-sounding one. But I think someday we’ll see the weather segment appear first on a regular basis. Think of the marketing: Weather Comes before News on Channel 20!

For those of you who like to know about the weather, but wish it were reduced to a 12-second summary on the local newscasts, you can get weather information all over the web, of course.

But there’s a local guy, who goes by “Weatherby,” who sends almost-daily emails about the upcoming weather. He lets his right-leaning politics slip out in his emails, he likes to dig at the local weather anchors, and his weather writing is blunt and fun.

I’ve been getting his emails for about a year. You also might like them.

His email earlier this week, with the subject line “yuck is on the way,” read:

Looks like there’s a decent chance for a crummy to partly crummy Thanksgiving weekend on the way with the yuk arriving about the same time the bird is done…..

To try him out, email him at SKGC77@aol.com and ask to be added to his weather list.  

In my column Sat, I complimented one of Denver’s local TV news stations, CBS 4, for promising not to release the names of men who may have been soliciting prostitutes from a high-end escort service, catering to lawyers, pro athletes, businesspeople and such.

Here’s CBS 4′s policy: “CBS4 is not identifying the customers without the clients confirming the information or law enforcement releasing the names.”

Ironically enough, CBS 4 announced this policy at the conclusion of a sleazy story about the alleged prostitution ring–a story based on an interview with a prostitute who described orgy-like parties at a fancy Denver club.

The story had little credibility, because the only source was the prostitute, who inherently lacks credibility. You wouldn’t expect any journalist to release the names of Johns simply on the basis of a prostitute’s interview. CBS 4 didn’t do this, even though the prostitute named three guys.

But strangely enough–or predictably enough for local TV news–CBS 4 couldn’t resist senationalizing an already sensational story by reporting the prostitute’s allegation that a robe with the name of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper was used by partygoers, including prostitutes, at the Denver Club.

CBS 4 not only announced this, but actually asked Hickenlooper about it. He denied any connection to the prostitution ring, through his spokesperson. He plays squash at the club, along with many other Denver muckety mucks.

Given that the prostitute interviewed by CBS 4 did not say Hick was involved in the sex parties, and CBS 4′s information that many high-profile men attend the club, I don’t think CBS 4 violated its own policy by releasing Hick’s name in this context. Still, it was a stupid and potentially damaging way to add star appeal to the story.

Another CBS 4 story, broadcast later, actually comes closer to crossing the station’s own ethical line. The station reported that federal agents were searching email accounts of Brenda Stewart, the owner of the Denver Players escort service, which allegedly provided prostitutes for high-profile Denver men and for the sex parties at the Denver club.

In this story, CBS 4 actually named a man who told CBS 4 that he loaned money to Brenda Davis, but he told News 4 that “he had no idea she may have been involved in a prostitution ring.” He also denied knowing anything about Denver Players.

This wasn’t a violation of CBS 4′s own standard but it did violate the spirit of it–because you are left wondering if the guy who allegedly loaned money to Davis is lying. And what’s the news value of informing us that this man lent money to an accused prostitute. There’s little or no public interest benefit to doing this, just like there’s no public interest value, as CBS 4 says, in releasing names of Johns linked to Denver players–unless their names are released by law inforcement or they confess. An exception to this rule may apply if elected officials are involved.

CBS 4 definitely deserves credit for its policy on releasing the names of Johns, but it’s not above rushing to the gutter on this story either.

I trash local TV news a lot, for obvious reasons, but I know you get good reporting there sometimes.

The trick for local TV is to find ways to deliver substantive information on a regular basis, not just dramatic substance, as in the investigative stuff they do, but the run-of-the-mill information that citizens need to function in a democracy.

That’s why I like regular features like Denver’s KCNC (Channel 4) “Good Question,” which I mentioned briefly in my last column.

Here’s more from KCNC anchor Alan Gionet (his response to my emailed questions) about the feature:

Last night at the Tattered Cover in downtown Denver, 9News reporter Adam Schrager signed his book, The Principled Politician: The Ralph Carr Story, in front of a high-profile crowd that included Mayor John Hickenlooper and a current or former Denver journalist in every row of the packed house.

Gov. Carr is known for defending the rights of Japanese Americans, who were treated horrifically after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Schrager’s presentation of the book was inspiring, if a bit too formal, because you left thinking that people really do want a leader like Carr, who will stand up for unpopular ideas.

Schrager was excellent during his question-and-answer session when he was funny and more relaxed, though he acknowledged that he was dodging specific questions about how Carr’s story relates to today’s politics, with illegal immigrants being scapegoated.

I think journalists should tell us what they think more often. They can still be fair and accurate in their news reporting.

Today, by email, I asked Schrager about something originally exposed by Colorado Media Matters:

Do you think Carr would have recommended that Clear Channel executives fire KOA’s Gunny Bob for his on-air statement that “every Muslim immigrant to America who holds a green card, a visa, or who is a naturalized citizen [should] be required by law to wear a GPS tracking bracelet at all times?”

And what do you, personally, think Clear Channel should do in response to this statement by Gunny? Here’s his response:

“The Constitution includes all people,” he wrote to the Rev. DeWitt Talmadge Alcorn in Coffeyville, Kansas, and numerous others. “We must preserve its principles for every man or we shall not have it to protect any man.” “(The) Constitution starts out by saying, …We the people of the United States.’ It doesn’t say …We the people, who are descendants of the English or the Scandinavians or the French.’ It says, “We the people… When it is suggested that American citizens be thrown into concentration camps, where they lose all the privileges of citizenship under that Constitution, then the principles of that great document are violated and lost.”“While not expressed in this exact language, the underlying theory of the Constitution is found in the proposition that every man may use the talents which God has given him, may reach any goal toward which he sets his eyes and may enjoy the fruits of his ambition, his study and his toil, provided only that he does not use his powers to injure his fellows.”

In my column Saturday, I didn’t discuss the possibility that protesting could generate increased media coverage of the DNC.

Don’t count on it. If there is protesting, it will be minor. And if there are arrests, I bet the numbers will be small and the actions peaceful and therefore not attracting Seattle-WTO-like coverage.

Someone told me she thought the DNC would get more coverage because it’s in the West. Yup, she’s a Democratic political consultant, and she forgets that the real world doesn’t care about speculation that western states could decide the 2008 presidential election, at least not enough to drive ratings. So this issue, while obviously important, won’t affect media coverage of the DNC.

Here’s the full email text of retired 9News anchor Ed Sardella’s thoughts on media coverage of the Democratic National Convention.

I think the downward spiral of interest in and coverage of orchestrated, suspense-less conventions will continue on the national and local level.  Denver media may enjoy an unusual level of interest just because the Dem convention is here.

I predict there will be less coverage than 2004, and that print will rely on their outsources more than ever before. I can’t comment specifically on the number who will attend but I think it will be down significantly from 2004.

Back in the heyday of TV news with big budgets, it was worth the expense to stations on the local level to have their anchor seen live in front of the banner at the podium that said, “Democratic (or Republican) National Convention.” I had personal experience with that. At the conventions I was sent to in the 80′s, it seemed I started hearing “WRAP” in my ear as soon as I and the banner appeared on the screen together. The importance of the shot far exceeded the content of the report. Those days are gone. I sense local stations will not send people to the conventions in large numbers not only because of the financial consideration but out of conviction that few, if any, watching at home will care… banner or not.

Three other factors in the equation may be worth mentioning. First, the circus that is presidential campaigns has crossed the line into the theater of the absurd in the minds of hoards of citizens because of the early campaigning and the childish and frantic obsession on the part of the states to be first or early with their primaries. I heard reports this week that all will be decided by March, if not sooner.  That will leave months before the conventions for people to put the campaign completely out of mind.

The second factor is the location of the conventions. I have had a number of print people tell me that the attractiveness of the venue has a lot to do with the intensity of the lobbying for the assignment in their newsrooms. Perhaps that is an element of the decision making process that is underestimated. How will this year’s locations be seen by reporters who might have the option (and luxury) of going or not going?

Third, and unknown, is to what degree, if any, the candidates’ reliance on new media to attract young potential voters will succeed. I am on the pessimistic side of center.

Responding to the argument that TV news should carry more election stories, 9News reporter Adam Schrager emailed me:

“The rubric by which you choose to measure civic journalism has changed. You and others can call all you want for extra air time on any newscast you select, but I would much rather be able to offer more in-depth coverage for our viewers to experience on THEIR time rather than on a time I’ve pre-determined for them. Further, I have empirical proof to back me up. My experience shows that hundreds of thousands of unique visitors visited the election page on 9News.com in 2004 and stayed for 15-16 minutes.

In my Saturday column, I showed how local TV news stations are filling their broadcasts with lucrative political ads, while downplaying the upcoming election.

And local TV news is the top source of news for Americans.

The news director at one local TV station told me that he has a hard time presenting political news in a way that viewers want it. This makes some sense, of course, because they are used to being entertained to death–by local tv news shows and elsewhere.

But, maybe viewers — not just elitist critics like me — want more serious news:

Today, the Radio and Television News Directors Association came out with a study showing that TV news viewers want more serious news. All the more reason that local TV news should give them more election coverage.