Like endangered fish that seemed destined to disappear from a once-important lake, journalists have made a miraculous comeback at Colorado’s Capitol, which is now teeming with about the same number of reporters who were assigned there from the 1960s through the 1990s.

“I would have to say, yes, your perception is correct,” said Charles Ashby, Capitol reporter for the Grand Junction Sentinel, when asked if his species of journalist was thriving at the Capitol, compared to the old days. “While I can’t speak on how many people were around in the 60s, 70s and 80s (because I may be the Capitol dean and Oldnewsman, I’m not THAT old), my understanding is there are about the same or maybe slightly fewer people covering the Capitol these days.”

Ashby estimated that when he started at the legislature in 1997, the Capitol press corps, which is the group of journalists assigned to cover the general assembly, consisted of three to four from The Denver Post, two each from the Rocky Mountain News, the Colorado Springs Gazette, and the Associated Press, and one each from Pueblo Chieftain and Longmont Times-Call—with an “occasional” reporter from Boulder Daily Camera and “less occasionally” from the Fort Collins Coloradoan and Grand Junction Sentinel. Other reporters would “parachute in for specific stories,” said Ashby.

That’s a total of 11 to 15 Capitol reporters in the late 1990s, before the numbers started to decline in the next decade.

Today’s list totals at least 17 reporters.

Colorado Independent: Two.
Colorado Politics: Two.
Denver Post: Two (versus a high of five in the 1960s and 1970s)
Colorado Public Radio: Two.
Colorado Sun: Two.
Associated Press: One.
Chalkbeat: One.
Denver Business Journal: One
Denverite/CPR: One.
Durango Herald: One.
Grand Junction Sentinel: One.
Rocky Mountain Community Radio: One.

“The competition for office space around here this year has been pretty intense, because there just isn’t enough room to accommodate everybody,” said the Capitol’s second-longest-serving journalist Marianne Goodland of Colorado Politics, an online and print weekly.

That wasn’t the case over the past 15 years, when the Denver and rural dailies were cutting their Capitol bureaus—and online platforms weren’t filling the gap.

“A lot of publications stopped sending people here around the time the Rocky Mountain News closed, so you had this dearth of coverage of the legislature, and it’s just now on the rebound to where it was before,” says Goodland, who started covering the legislature in 1998. “It’s a different business model with a lot of niche reporting for which there is a clear demand. Everybody is growing.”

The number of journalists in the Capitol press corps doesn’t include reporters for local television news stations, who have a bigger presence at the legislature than they did during the heyday of the print dailies, according to longtime journalists.

Nor does the Capitol press corps include the many journalists, from The Denver Post, Colorado Politics, Colorado Public Radio, the Colorado Sun, and elsewhere, who drop in for a story or two.

“We have John Frank and Jesse Paul at the Capitol full-time,” Colorado Sun Editor Larry Ryckman said via email. “We have freelancers Brian Eason and Sandra Fish covering state government issues part-time, and we have other full-time reporters — including Jennifer Brown, John Ingold and Chris Osher — who cover issues at the Capitol from time to time.”

Kevin Dale, the Executive Editor at Colorado Public Radio, described a similar approach.

“We have two full-time reporters: Bente Birkeland and Sam Brasch,” Dale said via email. “We also send other beat reporters to monitor bills that are important to that beat. We now have a photographer and often send them there. Last, because we just acquired Denverite, we are making use of their statehouse reporter Esteban Hernandez, though you might already be accounting for him with Denverite.”

Could we have arrived at the surreal situation where Colorado has too many reporters at the Capitol, given that other critical beats, like municipal government, education, courts, etc., aren’t getting the attention they deserve–or not attention at all?

“Media outlets rightly believe that what happens in the Legislature greatly impacts their readers, and therefore is important to follow and report on.” Ashby emailed me. “And I wouldn’t say there is too much emphasis on the Legislature over local government coverage. For example, I’ve had to remain in Grand Junction more often than normal this session because of some turnover here. While they are seeking a new county government reporter, I have spent the past several weeks covering both county government and the Legislature.”

Former Rocky reporter Lynn Bartels, who started covering the legislators in the year 2000, says the legislative coverage now is “overwhelming.”

“There’s almost too much to read in the morning,” Bartels told me, explaining that she will open just one of many morning emails from the outlets, look up, and find that she “hasn’t gotten any of her work done.”

“There is an amazing concentration on the Capitol, and I sometimes think that’s to the detriment of other beats,” she said, explaining that the Rocky had a Denver Public Schools reporter, a suburban reporter, police, higher education, religion, city hall, and more.

Maybe in an ideal world, you’d spread the journalistic love across the community, but alas it doesn’t work that way.

So let’s just accept this as great news for journalism and Colorado—and appreciate it while it lasts.

U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) is trying to sound like a good-government crusader, saying on Twitter that he’s “consistently been against government shutdowns,” and specifying on KOA’s Colorado’s Morning News that “it’s a position I’ve taken since 2013, opposing the shutdown then.”

But in 2013, Gardner told KOA’s Mike Rosen that he favored a government shutdown to de-fund Obamacare, and he said Obama would be at fault. Here’s the exchange:

Rosen: “Perhaps we can talk about some other items on the agenda, such as the current dispute, even with the Republican Party, about whether Republicans, who have a majority in the House, ought to take a stand now, as the continuing resolution question comes up, take a stand on Obamacare, and refuse to fund it, while at the same time, agreeing with a continuing resolution that would allow the rest of the federal government to operate. Have you got a position on that?

Gardner: I want to do anything and everything I can to stop Obamacare from destroying our health care, from driving up increases in costs. Whether that’s through the continuing resolution, I want to defund everything that we can….

Rosen: There’s a political concern that if the Republicans stand their ground on this [repealing Obamacare], they are going to be blamed for shutting down the government.

Gardner: Well, I think if the government gets shut down, it’s going to be the President’s decision to do so. I believe that we don’t need to shut down the government because we ought to just lift this health-care bill out of the way and let America work. 

Listen here

In 2014, Democrats used the fact that Gardner supported a government shutdown in a political ad.

In a TruthTest of the ad, then 9News political reporter Brandon Rittiman wrote:

“Gardner did vote in line with the Republican strategy that led to the government shutdown.”

The ad claimed that “Congressman Gardner stood with his party in Washington, voting to shut down the government, right when Colorado was recovering from historic floods.”

Rittiman wrote that the statement, “The overall claim here is true, but the wording requires some additional context.”

Here’s Rittman’s analysis:

CLAIM: “Just one year ago, Congressman Gardner stood with his party in Washington, voting to shut down the government, right when Colorado was recovering from historic floods.”

VERDICT: True, but needs context

The overall claim here is true, but the wording requires some additional context.

Gardner did vote in line with the Republican strategy that led to the government shutdown.

That didn’t happen by passing a bill to shut it down, the way this ad makes it look by referencing votes on screen.

Those votes were Republican spending packages, which passed the House. They would have funded the government, but also contained language aimed at curbing Obamacare.

For that reason, the president made it clear he wouldn’t sign that bill, which had no chance of passing the Senate regardless.

Republicans knew they could cause a shutdown by forcing the healthcare issue to be part of the discussion about keeping the government open.

However, it takes two to tango, and the Democrats didn’t want to mix the ACA into the spending debate. It would have been possible to accept the GOP plan and avoid a shutdown.

Whether it was fair to bundle those concepts is the core of the debate.

It’s also worth pointing out that Gardner did eventually voted to end the shutdown as well, which most House Republicans did not.

During a radio interview yesterday, one of the state’s most partisan Republican radio hosts essentially begged state Rep. Lori Saine (R-Firestone) to walk back her statement at the Capitol last week that blacks and whites were once lynched in “almost equal numbers.” But Saine didn’t take the hint.

First, KNUS 710-AM host, Dan Caplis, tried this:

CAPLIS: “…the Greeley Tribune version of the comments, as you know, is that you said essentially that black and whites had been lynched in nearly equal numbers during Reconstruction, and lynched for being Republican. Do you want to clarify those comments? What’s your view of all that now?

SAINE: And I clearly meant [during] Reconstruction. And Reconstruction is a period from 1865-1877, by the way. There is not a tremendous amount of data for a lot of those years, but the data that we do have….

Caplis tried again:

CAPLIS: “I think one of the concerns – and one thing you may want to qualify – is the reason why people were lynched – because my guess is, and this is not something I’ve researched – but intuitively I’d guess that an awful lot of the whites who were lynched were lynched for various alleged crimes such as stealing horses, bank robbery, etc., whereas blacks were just being lynched for the color of their skin. Am I right?”

SAINE: So, I have heard that argument before, but, if you look at the lynchings earlier in the 1800s versus the numbers coming right out of Reconstruction, it’s hard to say that all of a sudden they went from – you know, if you look at 1882 its 64 whites, 49 blacks….

Then Caplis said to Saine:

CAPLIS: “But we know – don’t we? – that blacks were being lynched based on the color of their skin. And whites weren’t being lynched based on the color of their skin, right?”

SAINE: So, the accounts that we have of history that people have written books about – I mean, there is a lot of sources on this. But there’s even an African American Congressman – his name is John Lloyd Lynch….

The Caplis finally said to Saine as an apparent last resort:

CAPLIS: “But some could easily view this as you attempting to equate the plight of whites with black when it came to lynching, or to somehow downplay the horror that was inflicted on blacks, to politicize it, to make it a Republican thing. So, can you see where people would see your comments that way?”

SAINE: Well, that certainly was not my intent. And the rest of my speech goes on to say that Americans of all faiths, creed, and race stood by Reverend King to march for civil rights. And they were beaten, they were tortured, they were killed….

The exchange is shockingly unusual, because it took place on a platform that’s usually friendly turf for Republicans like Saine, who are under fire in the rational media world, to walk back, criticize, slam, flip flip, whatever it takes to get back on message.

But in this case, Saine looked awful going into Caplis’ show–and she looked even worse when she departed. Read the entire exchange below.

State Rep. Lori Saine, Dan Caplis Show, January 22, 2019

CAPLIS:  I really appreciate the opportunity to talk with Representative Lori Saine. Welcome to 630 KHOW!

SAINE: Thank you so much for having me….

CAPLIS: I don’t know if you saw The Denver Post editorial today. My guess is somebody probably pointed it out to you. It was pretty vicious, aimed at you, over comments made on the floor of the legislature. And the Greeley Tribune version of the comments, as you know, is that you said essentially that black and whites had been lynched in nearly equal numbers during Reconstruction, and lynched for being Republican. Do you want to clarify those comments? What’s your view of all that now?

SAINE: And I clearly meant [during] Reconstruction. And Reconstruction is a period from 1865-1877, by the way. There is not a tremendous amount of data for a lot of those years, but the data that we do have – and I should have modified, or made a modifier to that speech I gave on the floor. But when you’re writing things on the fly –.

SAINE: Now, I knew – I’ve seen the numbers before. I should have said “during Reconstruction or the decade after.” And it turns out that, when you look at the data, and I’ve shared this data multiple times, because it’s out there – it’s public. It turns out that there were more whites than blacks lynched. The numbers: 525 for whites and 371 for blacks up until 1887. And so, you know, that’s a full decade after Reconstruction. Now, nobody is denying that more blacks than whites were lynched over the course of the next – you know – 80-some years. But that was the point I was trying to make: we’ve come a long way since then. We’ve come a long way since, you know, that form of torture and political punishment was used to try to silence, and try to undo all the benefits of Reconstruction.

CAPLIS: Right.

SAINE: And you know, going on to the present day, you know, Dr. King would not want us to go backwards. I mean, there has been so much accomplished, even since his time. And we’ve been moving forward together. And there are very few countries that enjoy the level of comfort that we have. You know, their middle class has less room – square footage – than we do, eats less red meat, doesn’t have all the conveniences that even the folks that are considered under the poverty level [here]. America is amazing! It’s amazing what it has brought innovation-wise. We’re one of the top countries in the world still. I think up to a fourth of the innovations come out of the United States. I mean, it’s amazing.

CAPLIS: Sure. And, Representative, I don’t think there’s any doubt, if people are being honest about it, that African Americans in this country are still tremendously disadvantaged in numbers far too great, particularly when it comes to equal opportunity in education. I think that can be traced, almost always, to policies of the Democrats, which have the effect of being blatantly racist. I’m not saying they’re intended that way. But, my goodness! – they have such an obvious racist effect, and disadvantaged African Americans in so many ways. But let me ask you this, if I may, because I do want to give you the chance to clarify on this statement about lynching, because obviously you know that when it comes to something like lynching, that was such as tool of ultimate terror and is most directly – as you know– associated with the subrogation of African Americans in this country, I think one of the concerns – and one thing you may want to qualify – is the reason why people were lynched – because my guess is, and this is not something I’ve researched – but intuitively I’d guess that an awful lot of the whites who were lynched were lynched for various alleged crimes such as stealing horses, bank robbery, etc., whereas blacks were just being lynched for the color of their skin. Am I right?

SAINE: So, I have heard that argument before, but, if you look at the lynchings earlier in the 1800s versus the numbers coming right out of Reconstruction, it’s hard to say that all of a sudden they went from – you know, if you look at 1882 its 64 whites, 49 blacks. But that number jumps up on whites in 1884 to 160. It’s hard to believe that that many people would say, “Gosh, I’m going to rob a bunch of banks today or do some horse trading.” And then the number spikes for blacks in 1892 and 1892 – a big spike! And, you know, there has got to be a reason for that other than that many more people were caught stealing horses.

CAPLIS: But we know – don’t we? – that blacks were being lynched based on the color of their skin. And whites weren’t being lynched based on the color of their skin, right?

SAINE: So, the accounts that we have of history that people have written books about – I mean, there is a lot of sources on this. But there’s even an African American Congressman – his name is John Lloyd Lynch. And he had mentioned specifically — this is somebody that served during that time – that blacks were hanged in greater numbers because of their opposition to the Democratic Party. So, it was probably easier to tell by the color of their skin. Then I’m sure there’s no doubt that they were also lynched because of hatred – somebody who looks different. There’s no doubt about it.

CAPLIS: Well, right. I don’t think that there’s any doubt that that was the central motivation for lynching blacks and then blaming it on whatever the killers and murderers chose to blame it on.

SAINE: Right. Exactly

CAPLIS: But one thing that you’ve been criticized for – and I want to give you the chance to say whether it’s accurate or not – is that you said that the reason for the lynchings was “being Republican,” quoting the Tribune story – the Greeley Tribune. “A Colorado Republican said white people and black people were lynched in nearly equal numbers for being Republican in the post-Reconstruction era.” Is that accurate – the Republican piece of that?

SAINE: So, the interesting part of this conversation is a lot of people emailed me and said no whites were ever lynched. That’s not true, for one thing. You can look at the numbers and see that it was [true]. So, that’s sort of an interesting conversation that people did not know about. But there’s plenty of accounts in history. There’s books [that have] been written from that era. There’s – it has been pointed out to me that even Ron Chernow who wrote the Hamilton book – which was very well-received, made into a play – he wrote another [book] about Grant. And he was talking about some of the violence against white Republicans, and specifically the carpet-baggers, those young people who came down from the North to not only look for jobs but they were also there to help black folks in the South. And white folks that helped black folks in the South– who were already there in the South– were called ‘scumbags’. So it’s — you know, there’s a lot of sources on this. I’m not saying that all of them were based on the fact that they were part of a political party. I never said that. I didn’t say all of them were. Does that satisfy your question?

CAPLIS: Yeah, well, — yeah. But I’m sure you can see why there was such a strong reaction to this, in that some might have viewed it as – and I assume you’ll tell us it was not your motive, and I would believe that. But, some could easily view this as you attempting to equate the plight of whites with black when it came to lynching, or to somehow downplay–

SAINE: No, not at all. Of course not.

CAPLIS: –the horror that was inflicted on blacks, to politicize it, to make it a Republican thing. So, can you see where people would see your comments that way?

SAINE: Well, that certainly was not my intent. And the rest of my speech goes on to say that Americans of all faiths, creed, and race stood by Reverend King to march for civil rights. And they were beaten, they were tortured, they were killed. And the point of the matter was that he stood for all Americans. He stood on the mountaintop for all Americans to have the same rights. And I believe that King was about unity. So that’s really where the flow of that speech was going. It was never meant to say – or to downplay or to take away from the horrors that happened in the Civil War and the Reconstruction era.

CAPLIS: Well, and to the point of context for this, I hope folks are aware that your comments – and the comments on lynching, personally, I wish had not been part of your overall comments – but your overall comments, in fairness, you were on the floor to honor Dr. King. And that is what the bulk of your comments did. And that was clearly the intent behind your appearance.

It’s past time for reporters to start asking more key Colorado candidates where they stand on Trump.

Don’t yowl that it’s an unfair question, somehow beyond-the-pale partisan because Trump is so unpopular in Colorado and not relevant to state races.

If that’s what you think, you’re wishing you lived in a different America.

Trump’s presidency permeates every single political race and decision in our country, affecting every aspect of government (Bill of Rights, courts, press, FBI, EPA, voting, and so much more). His rhetoric and style upend civil discourse.

Whether you agree with that or not, you have to admit that Trump is a revolutionary-type force in our country.

As such, the opinions of all candidates about Trump should available to voters.

I don’t mean to say journalists have ignored candidates’ views on Trump, but the reporting has been spotty and, in the legislative races, it’s been absent in many cases, even in the state senate races that are so critical in this election.

I’ve scoured the public record, and called candidates, to find out which Colorado Republicans voted for Trump. Will they do so again? What do they like and don’t like about what he’s done? (I’m assuming Democrats oppose Trump.)

Objectively, these are legitimate questions for any candidate in the year 2018. Yet, many Republicans in key Colorado races have yet to answer them. Here’s what we know so far.

GOVERNOR

Walker Stapleton (embraced Trump’s endorsement.  Wants Trump to campaign with him here in Colorado)

Lang Sias (backs Trump now and is already dedicated to voting for him in 2020)

U.S. CONGRESS

U.S. Rep. Ken Buck (backed Trump in 2016; 88 percent pro-Trump voting record)

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman (voted for Pence in 2016; 96 percent pro-Trump voting record)

U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn (backed Trump in 2016; 94 percent pro-Trump voting record)

U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton (backed Trump in 2016;  96 percent pro-Trump voting record)

COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL

George Brauchler (says we’re “in pretty damn good hands” with Trump; voted for him)

COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE

Wayne Williams (expressed support for Trump’s candidacy)

COLORADO TREASURER

Brian Watson (supports Trump)

KEY STATE SENATE RACES

Beth Martinez Humenik of Thornton — (unknown, but she praised Trump’s Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke)

Christine Jensen of Wheat Ridge — (did not respond to a voice message asking for her views on the Trump presidency)

Olen Lund of Paonia — (did not respond to a voice message asking for his views on the Trump presidency)

Tim Neville of Littleton — (a loyal Trump backer, who celebrated Trump’s “Year of Greatness”)

Tony Sanchez of Lakewood — (did not respond to a voice message asking for his views on the Trump presidency)

KEY STATE HOUSE RACES

Kristina Alley of Lakewood — (voted for Trump)

Grady Nouis of Westminster — (stands with Trump 100%)

Toren Mushovic of Greenwood Village — (did not respond to a voice message asking for his views on the Trump presidency)

Kit Roupe of Colorado Springs — (wrote in 2016, “I ask you to vote and to vote for Trump.“)

State Sen. Randy Baumgardner (R-Hot Sulphur Springs) shared a fake news article on his Facebook page this week titled, “BREAKING: Broncos VP John Elway Storms Field, Fires 3 Kneeling Players on the Spot.”

You’d think that little or no depth of thought would be required to question the veracity of this alleged news article, in part because everyone in the state of Colorado and the world would have heard about it–and seen it on TV ad nauseum–if it were a fact.

But who would expect Baumgardner to take five-and-a-quarter seconds to visit the Google and check his own facts before hitting the share button on Facebook, given that Baumgardner has repeatedly poisoned us with fake news in the past? And he’s an elected official?

Actually, it took me three-and-a-half seconds, not five-and-a-quarter, to confirm that the Elway news was fake. Read it in Snopes, the fact-checking entity used by Facebook itself:

None of these events took place. The Broncos have no players named Mavius Malphner, Ladamian Brown, or DeShaq Darq. Like everything published by America’s Last Line of Defense, the article is fake.

However, some readers mistakenly believed it to be authentic, as demonstrated by the many earnest comments on the Facebook page of America’s Last Line of Defense.

That Facebook page and website (currently operating at the URL “trumpbetrayed.us”) are part of a network of junk news sites that engage in political trolling, much of it racially-charged and inflammatory, presented as “satire.”

Baumgardner once posted a fake story claiming that Obama actually replaced American flags in the White House with “Muslim prayer curtains.” (Read about this and more here.)

Only seven Colorado legislators have signed a pledge not to post fake news on their social media accounts, even though elected lawmakers in Colorado have been repeatedly caught posting false information, made to look like real news, on Facebook.

The conservative Colorado Springs Gazette tried today to argue that U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) isn’t as pro-Trump as his 96 percent pro-Trump voting record would have you believe.

The Gazette argues that the 96-percent score includes “bills most rational members of Congress support, from both parties.”

The newspaper lists 15 examples, including bipartisan measures to provide hurricane relief and reduce opioid addiction.

Trouble is, if you throw out these 15 bipartisan votes from Coffman’s list of pro-Trump votes, the Aurora Congressman still has a 95 percent pro-Trump voting score.

And if you subtract 15 more votes, among the 90 House votes on which Trump had a publicly known stance, Coffman’s pro-Trump score is 93 percent.

Coffman’s core problem is that he voted just four times against Trump.

One of those four votes was on an important healthcare bill, as the Gazette points out, but Coffman later expressed support for another Trump-backed bill to kill Obamacare. It was defeated in the U.S. Senate, due to the downward thumb of former Arizona Sen. John McCain.

With Coffman in danger of being washed out of office by the blue wave, the conservative Gazette will try to argue that Coffman isn’t as Trump-loving as he appears, but his pro-Trump voting record won’t prove the point.

Writers love to add stuff after they’re done writing something, but usually they tweak rather than blow up their work with a completely new idea.

But Colorado Springs Gazette dropped a last-minute bomb in an editorial yesterday.

The piece argued that Democratic candidate for governor Jared Polis’ ties to the KKK run deeper than Republican Walker Stapleton’s, even though Stapleton’s great-grandfather was a leader of the KKK in Colorado. And Stapleton has refused to denounce the KKK or his family ties to it, while instead praising his great-grandfather in campaign ads.

And Polis has no ties to the KKK.

Westword’s Chris Walker noticed that the original version of the Gazette’s editorial didn’t have the closing line that Polis is the “candidate our established, left-wing media hope to elect.” This was added later.

So it was an afterthought!

You’d think news like this would be the headline of the editorial (with lots of supporting evidence). Something like, COLORADO MEDIA IN THE TANK FOR THE LEFT.

But the Gazette, which is owned by Republican mega-donor Phil Anschutz, provided no evidence for the assertion.

And the election of Republican Sen. Cory Gardner, with The Post’s endorsement in 2014, would tend to make you think otherwise about any liberal leanings of the media in Colorado.

The Denver Post published a few thoughtful letters over the weekend about whether the New York Times erred in reporting on the potential impact of Republican candidate for governor Walker Stapleton’s family ties to the KKK.

The letters responded to Post columnist Mario Nicolais’ June 29 piece titled “The New York Times kneecaps Walker Stapleton.”

In his column, Nicolais complained that the Times article, titled “Family History Haunts G.O.P. Candidate for Governor in Colorado” by Julie Turkewitz, was a “hit piece.” “It’s dirty, it’s wrong, and it contributes to the dumbing-down of the electoral process,” wrote Nicolais.

One letter writer, Ryan Bauer of Thornton, points out that Nicolais, who’s normally super detail-oriented, somehow failed to note that Walker Stapleton once bragged about his great-grandfather, Benjamin Stapleton, who was a leader of the Colorado KKK in the 1920s,

As the Times article points out, Stapleton touted his great-grandfather’s public service in at least one campaign ad as a candidate for state treasurer in 2009. He has avoided the issue more recently with rising public awareness of Benjamin Stapleton’s Klan affiliation, i.e. efforts to rename the Stapleton neighborhood as well as an eponymous school.

If Walker Stapleton felt it was appropriate to highlight his great-grandfather’s accomplishments for electoral gain, he also must decry the ugly, racist side of that legacy. It’s a loose end that, unless Stapleton officially comments, voters will be left to wonder whether his sympathies lie with the white nationalist bloc under the Trump-GOP tent.

A second letter, by Nancy Banks, states. in part:

Nicolais correctly argues that Walker Stapleton isn’t responsible for the sins of his great-grandfather; however, he ignores the fact that Walker Stapleton is not a self-made politician, but instead is the beneficiary of the political dynasty started by his great-grandfather — a dynasty that had initial success based on Benjamin Stapleton’s support for white supremacy and his support by white supremacists.

Voters are entirely within their rights to ask Walker Stapleton what that dynasty means to him, and to get a clear answer from him.

A third letter writer wrote:

I note that Denver attorney Mario Nicolais in his op-ed justifiably lambastes the New York Times for its association of Colorado gubernatorial candidate Walker Stapleton with the membership of his great grandfather Benjamin Stapleton in the Ku Klux Klan.

It is rather ironic to say the least that on the very next page George Will begins his criticism of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez by noting that “For three months in 1917, Leon Trotsky lived in the Bronx, just south of the congressional district where Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez recently defeated a 10-term incumbent in a Democratic primary.” C’mon George.

Much has been made of The Denver Post’s hedge-fund owner’s strategy of sucking profit from the enterprise while sending it into a death spiral with staff cuts that undermine the core journalistic mission of newspaper.

But everyone who tracks The Post knows that the paper’s problems run much deeper than Alden Global, its owner.

The core subscriber base of The Post’s print edition, which is still a major revenue source for big city dailies, is getting older and dying–while younger people don’t want to pay for journalism at all–online and certainly not in print.

Ironically, the newspaper’s precarious financial condition is undoubtedly the major reason its accepting fake news advertisements that brazenly aim to manipulate the loyal audience that continues to love and cherish the newspaper: old people.

Since March, I’ve tracked some of the fake-news ads that run in the Post’s print edition. To me, they’re shocking, funny, and heart-breaking, especially because I’ve seen them work on my very own mom.

I’m sure they’re hated by the fine journalists who work at The Post, but that doesn’t make the ads, often with fake bylines and disclaimers too tiny for the eyes of many oldsters, any less disgraceful.

Tuesday’s ad, for example, was headlined:

“New arthritis pain killer works on contact and numbs pain in minutes.”

“David Watson Associated Health Press” was the journalist-ish name atop the article. A Google search for this person revealed ads in newspapers across the country, including one with his name on it from the St. Louis Post Dispatch, which surely has the same audience problem as The Denver Post. The title of the St. Louis Post ad: “New Numbing Drug Relieves Crippling Arthritis Without Pills or Needles.” (A previous ad on a similar topic had “Robert Ward, Associated Health Press, as the author).

To its credit, The Post labels the ads as advertisements, but the warning is too small and does not get the newspaper off the hook for promoting the same fake news it purports to hate.

The ads undermine The Denver Post’s most valuable asset, which is its credibility as a trusted news source.

Here’s some other sample headlines of ads printed since March 13 in The Denver Post:

New pill reverses memory loss in amazing way. Subhead: Developed by Israeli doctor. Study shows key ingredient reverses years of mental decline and may also prevent dementia (July 23).

Pills may replace diapers and padded underwear at stores. Subhead: Clinical studies show new pill may be effective enough to replace diapers for bladder control. Initial users show dramatic reduction in trips to the bathroom, embarrassing leaks and nighttime urgency (July 18).

Why haven’t senior homeowners been told these facts? Subhead: Keep reading if you own a home in the US and were born before 1955 (July 7).

New drug numbs arthritis pain exactly where it hurts (June 18).

America is hungry for Martha Stewart’s new 30 minute dinner kits (April 30).

New non pill sex cream for men gets amazing results. Subhead: Recent warnings on sex drugs could lead to the creation of an amazing no-pill option. Key ingredients activate sensation pathways triggering erections and arousal.

New prostate pill reduces urge to pee especially during the night.

Adult diapers may no longer be needed thanks to amazing new pill (March 15).

Pill used in Germany for 53 years relieves joint pain in 7 days without side effects. Subhead: Now available in the US without a prescription! By JK Roberts, interactive news media. (March 14).

Americans report improvements in memory, concentration, and thinking power. By Daniel Ward as health press (March 16).

I don’t mean to hit The Denver Post when its down, but the victims of these ads deserve to know that none of this is news that’s been vetted by their trusted Denver Post. The deception is probably working. Otherwise these ads would have stopped months ago.

More Ads:

It’s the kind of conservative Facebook post you might roll your eyes at and move on, except it was posted just before last week’s murder of five staffers at a Maryland newspaper.

“Look at this….!!!” wrote the Montrose County (southern Colorado) Republican Party on its Facebook page, referring to a meme showing two editions of the Wall Street Journal with two different headlines about the same story.

“Same exact newspaper, same exact date, sold in different areas depending on the level of political parties in that area,” states the meme (on your right). “This is a clear example of the media training your brain people. Open your eyes before it’s too late.” [emphasis added]

Except it’s not the “media training your brain people.”

As explained by the nonpartisan fact checker Snopes, newspapers print different editions at different times during the day, and sometimes the headlines and content changes as stories develop:

This image was passed around on the Internet accompanied by the claim that the Wall Street Journal had deliberately published one headline, “Trump Softens His Tone,” in a pro-Trump market area in an attempt to sway readers away from the the GOP nominee, and the other headline, “Trump Talks Tough on Wall,” in a non-Trump market area to bolster support for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

However, these opposing headline editions were not distributed to different political or geographic markets, nor were they intended to influence voters.

This picture shows two editions of the Wall Street Journal published at different times of the day. The paper on the left came off the press early in the day, while the paper on the right was produced later in the day. Print newspapers sometimes undergo revisions throughout their daily runs and typically employ marks to distinguish the various editions — in this case the differing WSJ editions are distinguishable by the number of stars displayed in the masthead:

You hope that the Montrose Republicans remove the WSJ meme from their website, and I’ve asked them to do so. No response.

In any case, they’re a Colorado example of a problem that’s obviously stoked by conservatives across the country, starting with Trump and his “fake news” propaganda.

They’re not only trashing the profession of journalism, which is bad enough given how much we need reporters to hold Trump and every other politician accountable.

But they’re also putting working-stiff journalists at risk. I’m not going to blame the deaths at the Capital newspaper in Maryland on the rhetoric of conservatives. But it creates a hostile climate for journalists, to be sure, which is not deserved or supported by the conservatives who are doing the attacking.

And, again,  it de-legitimizes the honorable profession of journalism.

Take Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, who said last month the media wants conservatives to “fail.” His evidence for this? Zippo.

Gardner has also said, without evidence, that the “press” is biased against conservatives like him. And he blamed the media for Mitt Romney’s loss to Obama in 2012.

If you watch FOX News or follow politics at all, you know that evidence-free news-media bashing plays a leading role in the Republican playbook, going back way before Trump.

So you wonder what conservatives have to say to the journalists in Maryland, like the Capitol newspaper’s website editor, who defended his besieged profession after the shooting last week. The Washington Post reported last week:

Jimmy DeButts, an editor for the [Maryland newspaper’s] website, published a tribute on Twitter about the craft of his fellow journalists, with a nod to the struggles of many local newspapers to continue working under tough economic conditions.

“There are no 40 hour weeks, no big paydays — just a passion for telling stories from our community,” DeButts tweeted. “We keep doing more with less. We find ways to cover high school sports, breaking news, tax hikes, school budgets & local entertainment.”

DeButts added: “We are there in times of tragedy. We do our best to share the stories of people, those who make our community better. Please understand, we do all this to serve our community.”

Maybe the Montrose Republicans, Trump, Gardner, and other conservatives think they’ll maintain power by undermining journalism.

I’m hoping journalism–and our country–prevails, and I read about Trump’s and Gardner’s demise in the newspaper.