The Denver Post on Sunday became the first major news outlet in Colorado, with the exception of the Associated Press, to report that Ken Buck opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest.

This leads to a second question, which will be the first in my regular series, “Question of the week.” The question-of-the-week will be my suggested query for reporters to ask a specific policymaker, activist, elected official, or candidate. It will not always focus on Ken Buck, like this week’s question.

It appears that Ken Buck not only opposes a women’s right to choose abortion if she’s a victim of rape and incest, but he also supports a ban on the use of the morning-after pill or possibly other types of birth control, even in the case of rape and incest.

On KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show Aug. 4, Buck suggests that he’s opposed the use of the morning-after pill, even in the case of rape and incest. Here’s the transcript:

Craig: …Let’s say, god forbid, that a 13-year-old boy impregnates his 14-year-old sister and does it by forced rape. You’re saying that the 14-year-old and anybody involved in the abortion should be prosecuted, if they choose to terminate the pregnancy, either through surgical abortion or a morning after pill?

Buck: I think it is wrong, Craig. I think it is morally wrong. And you are taking a very small group of cases and making a point about abortion. We have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of abortions in this country every year. And the example that you give is a very poignant one but an extremely rare occurrence.

Craig: Incest happens. I’m sure your office prosecutes it. And we know rape and sexual assault happen all the time, and your office prosecutes it. So it’s not completely rare. I agree that most abortions have nothing to do with that. I don’t know if I’d go with rare.

Furthermore, Buck’s support of the Personhood amendment, which grants zygotes citizenship rights, would presumably include complete opposition to the use of some birth control measures, including the morning-after pill, even in the case of rape and incest. The Colorado Independent has been on this here.

So, the question for reporters to ask Buck:

Do you support a ban on the use of the morning-after pill even for a woman who is raped by a family member?

I asked former Rocky media critic Dave Kopel what he thought of the McInnis situation, in light of the plagiarism and media frenzy around Ward Churchill:

If McInnis were currently employed by a university, the standard course of action would be for an investigation. Sometimes, as in the Churchill case, scrutiny of a person’s published work reveals not only numerous instances of plagiarism spanning many years, but also many other instances of outright fraud. Compounding the problem in Churchill’s case was his total lack of repentance, and his absurd claims of innocence despite plain and overwhelming evidence.

In the case of the hypothetical Professor McInnis, a responsible administrator would want to know more before pronouncing final judgment. The Denver Post undoubtedly is working to gather additional information.

For a political candidate, any misconduct or bad judgment in a previous job is something that some voters choose to take into account when voting. Apparently the majority of voters in the U.S. in 2008 did not care much that Joe Biden in 1987 had plagiarized his “autobiography” from Neil Kinnock, or that Biden had thereafter continued to prevaricate about his autobiography.

While I wrote about media coverage of Churchill, I don’t recall that I ever called on him to resign. I have no opinion on whether McInnis should or should not withdraw.

One Republican has said that President Barack Obama “has a default mechanism” that “favors the black person.”

Closer to home, another GOP politician has said at least twice that President Barack Obama’s Administration “cares more about the rights of terrorists than the lives of American citizens.” 

The first statement is by Rep. Steve King of western Iowa, the second by Colorado Senate candidate Jane Norton.

If you’re a journalist, you don’t need to have an opinion on which of the statements is worse.

All you have to do is recognize that they are comparable.

If you think they are, and it’s clear that the two statements are in the same ballpark, then it’s fair to ask Rep. Cory Gardner, who this week canceled a $100-per-person fundraiser with King, if he’d un-invite Norton to a campaign event, if he were holding one with her. Or if he’d stand with her on stage at some point in the future.

Trouble is, Gardner cancelled the King event without comment, and his campaign isn’t talking to the media about it.

So what’s a reporter to do?

Don’t let this slip through the cracks. Ask Gardner about Norton’s statement (versus King’s) at a venue where he can’t run away from the question, like a televised debate or a direct, public interview.

Denver reporters should take a minute to read an op-ed by Lt. Gov. Barbara O’brien in Sunday’s Denver Post.

It discusses the broad ramifications of closing the federal Department of Education—a position favored by GOP Senate candidate Jane Norton—as well as GOP Senate candidates Rand Paul (in Kentucky) and Sharron Angle (in Nevada).

O’Brien did a good outlining the basic substance behind the soundbite, which is helpful because the issue has largely been ignored by news reporters across the state. Her opinion article defends the agency and describes the basic functions of Education Department, including innovative research, grant making , and job training.

You recall that in late December when Norton announced her position, The Denver Post, to its credit, tried to ask Norton about it.

Her spokesperson refused to comment, telling The Post, “It’s a holiday. Nobody cares.” 

Norton’s spokesman told The Post at the time that Norton would provide more details after the first of the year. But these details never materialized and, as far as I know, The Post hasn’t published any more information from Norton on the matter.

Also, as O’Brien’s op-ed pointed out, Ken Buck has a nebulous position to downsize the U.S. Dept. of Education, because it is “encroaching on local parents and educators.” His view—and associated budget cuts–should be explored by reporters. Of course, Democratic candidates Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff should also be queried about this.

No matter what you think of the U.S. Department of Education, you’d agree that closing the $78 billion department would be a pretty radical change in U.S. education policy, one that should be thoroughly aired out during the election season given Norton’s and Buck’s views.

In the gubernatorial race, reporters should clarify Scott McInnis’ position on education cuts. Asked in February if there were any “Colorado agencies, boards, or commissions” that he would eliminate, McInnis replied, “You could look at the Department of Education.”  

McInnis isn’t joining an emerging national Tea Party backlash by gubernatorial candidates against state education departments, like his GOP compatriot Norton seems to be in attacking the federal Education Department.

Instead, McInnis is apprently staking out new ground in targeting a major state education agency for possible closure.

Reporters should find out the details of the state’s major GOP candidates’ thinking when it comes to the federal and state governments’ major education agencies.

Toward the end of Sunday’s front-page New York Times article about the November election, your eye will hit this quote from Colorado GOP Chair Dick Wadhams:

“Never in my wildest dreams did I feel we’d be in this position,” said Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. “Voters got carried away with the charisma of Obama, but the bailouts, health care, cap-and-trade was not what they bargained for.”

If your eyes are like mine, you might see this as factually incorrect–because it was Wadhams’ own guy, President George W. Bush, who signed the dreaded bank bailout and, of course, McCain famously withdrew from the campaign trail to hunker down with his Senate buddies and agree to the bailout as well.

You hate to see a reporter quote misinformation from someone like Wadhams, without setting the record straight or challenging him somehow.

So I emailed NYT reporter Jeffrey Zeleny and asked him, ”Do you think you erred by failing to point out that Dick Wadhams’ presidential candidate in 2008, John McCain, supported the bailout?”

He response: ”Wadhams said bailouts plural — automotive, bank, insurance companies, etc — so he was referring to more than the TARP vote in the fall of 2008 in the final months of the Bush administration. It was a partisan quote, which probably half the electorate agrees with and half doesn’t.”

I told Zeleny he was right.

If Wadhams had said ”bank bailout,” he would have crossed the line, and Zeleny would have been obliged to correct him. But “bailouts” covers Wadhams. It’s factually accurate.

With respect to the other parts of Wadhams’ quotation, from a reporter’s perspective, Wadhams is entitled to his view that the healthcare law and cap-and-trade legislation are not what voters bargained for–even though, of course, Obama campaigned on these things.

You can argue that reporters shouldn’t allow a GOP spinmeister to conflate various rescue packages without explanation–just as reporters shouldn’t allow GOP spokespeople to lump together the Recovery Act and the bank bailout. But Wadhams points weren’t central to the article, which was more about polling than policy, so I don’t think Zeleny made a mistake by not dissecting the quote’s meaning–or lack of a clear meaning–or readers.

I’m completely amazed at the air time and hype KOA’s Colorado Morning News is giving to dispatches from Iraq by anchor Steffan Tubbs.

Colorado’s Morning News has got to be the only major commercial drive-time radio show in the country that’s actually reporting from Iraq these days, if ever.

I mean, if you don’t know the show, it fixates on traffic, weather, entertainment sports, and the water-cooler headline news—which is certainly not Iraq. You’ll hear political and entertainment heavyweights on the show, and the questioning they get from Tubbs and co-anchor April Zesbaugh ranges from fawning to lightly critical.

But ongoing reporting about something that’s off the news radar? Almost never. But this week, Iraq.

I’ve admired Tubbs for closing his show most days with, “remember our troops,” but now, there he is in the war zone, talking with commanders and troops and finding Colorado connections. And on KOA’s “Steffan in Iraq” page, you can read his blog.

Tubbs isn’t offering investigative reporting, and he’s being too much of a cheerleader, but still I have to say it’s great to hear our troops on commercial drive-time AM radio—as well as Tubbs’ other stories.

Tubbs, who went to Iraq in 2006 as well, is part of a Colorado group, including Ryan Huff, a Boulder Daily Camera editor Ryan Huff and folks from Altitude Sports and Entertainment, that’s there to teach Iraqi reporters about journalism.

Here’s Tubbs’ blog on his presentation:

…today was a busy one, with my presentation to Iraqi journalists off-base at a place they call Camp Midicah. It is only a couple of miles from where we sleep… and consists of some older Iraqi buildings and mostly U.S. trailers.

I addressed them on TV, radio and overall journalistic technique. The group is about 50 in size… and they were attentive, inquisitive, funny and intelligent. They are a respectful people for the most part, though if they are bored, they will let you know!

They liked my examples of both my TV work and portions of KOA and Colorado Morning News… but they were most interested in whether or not I could truly report on what I want to report. They had a bit of trouble comprehending that… I think so many of them are set in their ways from the old regime. But they are changing. I hope I made at least a dent.

Even those of you who can’t stand KOA have to admit that KOA-style expression and journalism look pretty good, if you’re standing in Iraq. Good luck to Steffan Tubbs.

If you read today’s Denver Post editorial about the draft “Modernization of Elections” bill, you’d be excused for thinking the bill is dead for this session.

The editorial discusses the draft bill mostly in the past tense–and argues that it should be taken up next session, with modifications.

The first sentence of the editorial reads:

“An interesting set of election reforms that merited consideration has been shelved at the Colorado legislature.”

Actually, the bill has NOT been shelved for this session, according to a reliable source.

And something else you wouldn’t know from reading The Post today: County clerks support the draft bill. More on them later.

Starting today, Rocky Mountain Media Watch will monitor statewide news outlets and spotlight journalistic lapses (e.g., factual errors, omissions, lack of fairness) in coverage of policy issues through 2010. In addition to media criticism, the media watch project will present local perspectives on current journalistic issues, as it did on its blog earlier today. (See next post.)

The project will review statewide print media, local TV news and public affairs shows, and news and talk radio.
 

“We hope in our small way we can keep reporters honest—or at least give them something to think about,” said former Rocky Mountain News media critic Jason Salzman, who’s directing the effort. “We have a progressive perspective, which we’re not hiding, but we’ll do our best to present differing views accurately. We want to be fair, like my columns in the Rocky tried to be.”

The media watch work will be posted on Bigmedia.org, the Rocky Mountain Media Watch website, and cross-posted on other blogs. They will be authored by Salzman

Founded in 1994, Rocky Mountain Media Watch is a Colorado-based nonprofit organization aiming to hold journalists to their own professional standards, like those promulgated by the Society of Professional Journalists and others. RMMW gained national acclaim for its analyses of the local TV news industry in the late 1990s. Over the past five years, the organization has been mostly dormant. Funding for the Colorado Media Watch project, which will run at least through 2010, is provided by a group of donors.
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jason Salzman, 303-292-1524
 

Facebook:           Bigmedia.org
Twitter:                @BigMediaBlog
YouTube:             BigMediaBlog
   

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.

There are a few theories on why E.W. Scripps is racing to dump the Rocky, putting it up for sale for just one month. One is, Scripps can afford to lose a bit of money for a month to see of a buyer comes along and offers a lot of money, even if the Rocky is sold at a bargain price. 

Another theory is that Scripps’ lawyers advised the company to put the newspaper up for sale for a month to show the Justice Department that it tried to sell the newspaper. (See my rejected Rocky column below.)

Another theory was that Scripps wanted to get rid of the Rocky before the Obama Administration took office, because Bush’s Justice Department would be less likely to intervene to save the Rocky than Obama’s new team at Justice. In my rejected Rocky column below, I quoted two experts who agreed that Obama’s Justice Department would be more likely to intervene that Bush’s.

That was probably wrong, because the Rocky is still with us and the new Administration has taken power. You could still make the argument that the new Administration is less likely to intervene soon than it would be six months from now, after it’s had time to get its act together. So there still could be an incentive for Scripps to act quickly, before Obama’s Justice Department is fully organized.

In any case, and this is the more important point, JOA legal expert Stephen Barnett says the Rocky does not need the approval of the Justice Department to shut the Rocky, if it simply shutters the newspaper and walks away from its investment in the Denver Newspaper Agency, the company that publishes the Denver Post and the Rocky and is joinly owned by Scripps and Dean Singleton’s MediaNews Group. 

This is unlikely, though, given the value of the Denver Newspaper Agency.

As former Post and Rocky business editor Don Knox told Westword, the jointly-owned company has $300 million in revenue. Yes, it’s got lots of debt, too, but Scripps would have to be reeeeely desparate to just leave the DNA to co-owner MediaNews and skip town. And Scripps isn’t so desparate yet, you’d think.

So this means that the most likely scenario, as reported by the Denver Post, is for MediaNews and Scripps to make a deal to close the Rocky–to “negotiate an exit strategy,” as the Post put it. And, if you believe Barnett, this would require approval of the Justice Department BEFORE the Rocky is closed.

And that’s when Justice could intervene to require, for example, a longer sales period, as explained in my rejected Rocky column below.

A contract to close the Rocky between Scripps and MediaNews could involve many unknown elements, but one option would be for Scripps to retain its position as 50-50 owner of the DNA. Or it could sell its share to Singleton, leaving Denver to MediaNews and the Post. The difficulty with the latter option would be determine what kind of payment the Rocky would get from Singleton for its share of the DNA.

In the past, when a newspaper has jumped out of a JOA, it has been given a share of future profit. (Read a bit about this here, for example.) But in the current economic environment, especially given Scripps professed views on the dismal future of big-city newspapers, you wouldn’t think Scripps would want any part of such an arrangment, given the (at least) short-term losses that the DNA is expecting.

So, perhaps the DNA would declare bankruptcy and, at the same time, close the Rocky. Singleton has opposed a bankruptcy delcaration, but maybe he’d go along with it to shed the Rocky.

Knox told Westword he thought bankruptcy made sense, though he suggested it as a way to save the Rocky, not kill it: “Just do a bankruptcy for the DNA. Change the equity and extend the lease payments. After all, it’s got $300 million in revenue. That doesn’t sound like a broken company to me. That sounds like a company with challenges — but in 2008, there are a lot of companies with challenges.”

The bottom line is that the most likely scenarios to close the Rocky involve some sort of agreement between Scripps and Media News to do so. Such an agreement would most likely have to be approved by Obama’s Justice Department.