Durango Herald repeated Coffman's charge that Gordon accepts "special interest" money -- but provided no evidence and no response from Gordon
Summary: A Durango Herald article repeated Republican Secretary of State candidate Mike Coffman's assertion that his Democratic opponent, Ken Gordon, takes "special interest" campaign donations, but didn't provide evidence to support Coffman's charge or a response from Gordon's campaign.
An October 22 Durango Herald article by reporter Joe Hanel uncritically repeated Republican Secretary of State candidate Mike Coffman's claim that Democratic candidate Ken Gordon's frequent statements that he does not accept "special interest" campaign donations are "blatantly false." The Herald article provided no evidence to support Coffman's charge. Moreover, the Herald provided no response from Gordon and gave no indication that it had attempted to contact Gordon's campaign for a response.
In the article, the Herald described an ad by the Gordon campaign, a version of which is available on his campaign website. In the ad, Gordon asserts that he is "the only candidate in this race who doesn't take special interest money" and that he will be "independent of special interests."
After describing the ad, the Herald uncritically reported that Coffman "said Gordon does take money from lobbyists and special interests." The Herald quoted Coffman as saying, "He's never really said what he's going to do as secretary of state. ... He's just running by saying, 'I don't take special interest money,' which is blatantly false." The Herald article included no evidence to support or refute Coffman's charge and did not provide a response from Gordon. The paper gave no indication of whether it had contacted Gordon about Coffman's charge.
Other newspapers have noted Gordon's assertion that he does not accept special interest money. Rocky Mountain News political columnist Peter Blake reported October 18 that "Gordon maintains he has refused all special-interest money, even small-donor committee funds from labor unions." And in an October 3 editorial endorsing Coffman, the Daily Camera of Boulder stated, "Gordon is rightly proud of the fact that he is refusing donations from political-action committees."
From Hanel's October 22 Durango Herald article, "Political ads tilt toward humor":
State Sen. Ken Gordon is running for secretary of state as a Democrat. To drum up attention, he put on a wetsuit and jumped into a shark tank, holding one of his campaign signs. He's unintelligible through his SCUBA gear, so subtitles tell his story.
"In politics, there are special interest sharks, like pharmaceutical and oil companies," Gordon says.
The camera cuts to a shark chomping on a fish.
"See that little fish? That would be you," Gordon says.
He then pledges to be fair to everyone.
The ad was scheduled to premiere on statewide cable Friday. His opponent, Republican Mike Coffman, said Gordon does take money from lobbyists and special interests.
"He's never really said what he's going to do as secretary of state," Coffman said. "He's just running by saying, 'I don't take special interest money,' which is blatantly false."
Gordon's ad is reminiscent of another political stuntman, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper. Last year, Hickenlooper jumped out of an airplane to urge people to vote for Referendum C.
—J.S.
Comments (1) Show
1 - 1 |
Greetings, and thank you for taking the time to analyze my story. I appreciate the way you at Colorado Media Matters attempt to base your criticisms in research and fact. And while I don’t agree with your analysis all the time, I think it’s valuable, and I thank you for your work in trying to add to an intelligent discussion of media in our state.
Just about every aspect of reporting is a judgment call. I made dozens of judgments in this story alone. You have challenged two of them. Here is my explanation.
I did not ask Ken Gordon for a counter quote because he, in essence, was making the original claim. In his ad, he holds himself out as a candidate who will stand up to special interests. In doing so, he is making an implicit claim about the race. I owed it to the principle of fairness to get Mike Coffman’s point of view. I didn’t go back to Gordon because then I would have had to give “fair-ups” to Coffman. Sooner or later, you get into an infinite loop. This exchange occurred in an anecdote in the second half of a larger story. I judged that it was better to cut off the discussion after one statement each.
Second, I printed the Coffman quote only after I had looked at Gordon’s finance records and satisfied myself that Coffman had sufficient grounds to make his claim. I did not include an explanatory paragraph after the quote. I reasoned that this was an attempt to write a lighthearted feature, and by adding more information that strayed further from the main point, I would risk cluttering my story. That, again, was my judgment, and it may or may not have been the right one.
The point is, I did treat Coffman’s claim critically in my reporting, if not my writing. To wit: According to the Institute for Money in State Politics, the top five industries contributing to Gordon’s campaign are:
Lawyers & Lobbyists: $14,875 Health Professionals: $6,830 Education: $2,300 Real Estate: $2,225 Oil & Gas: $1,600
By the Institute’s reckoning, its data is only 50 percent complete, so these numbers could have risen by now. The Institute gets its numbers from the secretary of state, then builds a database that is much easier to use than the state’s database. The data includes some of the occupations of the contributors. As far as I can tell, it is true that Gordon has not accepted Political Action Committee money.
Should I have included these numbers? I decided against it. It seemed to be out of context in a feature about humorous ads. Others might disagree. I welcome such disagreements, because they give me a chance to explain my thought process. I think it’s a healthy discussion, and I thank you for joining it.
Regards, Joe Hanel jhanel@durangoherald.com
1 - 20 |