On November 8, Colorado Media Matters provided a compilation of examples showing how Colorado news media have responded to its research identifying reporting that was not accurate, credible, or reliable and that advanced a conservative agenda. This compilation included items from the Fort Collins Coloradoan.

Responding on his own behalf to Colorado Media Matters, Coloradoan executive editor Bob Moore wrote that "Colorado Media Matters holds others to standards that it will not apply to itself." Moore also stated that Colorado Media Matters is “interested in focusing primarily on a couple of accurate statements in [reporter] Kevin's [Darst] reporting.”

On October 30, Colorado Media Matters noted that a Coloradoan article by Darst quoted two voters in the town of Brush who said they were planning to vote for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Fort Morgan) in part because Musgrave is “a Christian.” However, the Coloradoan failed to note that Musgrave's Democratic opponent, Angie Paccione, also is a Christian. Furthermore, on November 3, Colorado Media Matters noted that, despite substantial evidence to the contrary, the Coloradoan reported that “recent polls suggest” that Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez “could be” closing in on Democratic opponent Bill Ritter. While the article, also by Darst, noted that “most publicly available polls” show “Beauprez behind” Ritter, the Coloradoan provided no evidence for its assertion that Beauprez “could be” closing in.

According to Moore:

The Coloradoan, particularly Kevin Darst, produced an impressive volume of work on the election. He provided unmatched reporting on the money that was being pumped in to the 4th Congressional District race. But CMM isn't interested in that. It is instead interested in focusing primarily on a couple of accurate statements in Kevin's reporting.

Two voters in the eastern plains cited Marilyn Musgrave's religion as a factor in their choice. That was an accurate statement. CMM would have liked us to follow up their comments with a statement that Angie Paccione also is a Christian. (No such demand was made for reportage of Eric Eidsness' faith, but then, he's not a Democrat.) Paccione's faith was not a secret to Coloradoan readers. Should we have mentioned it again in the story at hand? Probably. But in isolating stories in a vacuum, CMM creates a deliberately distorted view of the Coloradoan's coverage of the election, and does so to fulfill an agenda.

In reference to the Coloradoan's suggestion that “recent polls suggest” that Beauprez “could be” closing in on Ritter, Moore wrote, “By CMM's own admission, that rather nebulous statement is accurate in that there were polls that suggested Beauprez 'could be' narrowing the lead”:

The same applies to the criticism of Kevin's brief remark in a story that said Beauprez “could be” closing in on Ritter based on recent polls. By CMM's own admission, that rather nebulous statement is accurate in that there were polls that suggested Beauprez “could be” narrowing the lead. CMM apparently is disappointed that we didn't give a full accounting of the extant polling data in the story. Of course, that ignores any other reporting we had done on the polling in the governor's race, either on our own or through wire services. It ignores the fact that the story was not about polling. CMM also chooses not to criticize the fact that we made nearly an identical claim in the same paragraph about Paccione making apparent polling gains against Musgrave. There is no call for reporting the specific polls that led us to this conclusion. Such concerns arise with CMM only when it concludes a claim may not benefit Democrats.

As Colorado Media Matters pointed out, the Coloradoan's suggestion that Beauprez “could be” closing in on Ritter echoed a claim Beauprez made in an October 31 Rocky Mountain News article that quoted him as saying he was “closing the gap.” The News article noted that Beauprez was “urging supporters to ignore polls showing him trailing Bill Ritter by double digits” and said Beauprez “cit[ed] in part an online Wall Street Journal-Zogby poll showing him within 2 percentage points of Ritter.” But as the News reported, “Some pollsters ... doubt the accuracy of online polling, fearing it can be skewed by regular survey participants and a void of seniors, low-income voters and others who don't use the Internet.”

While a subsequent online Zogby poll, released October 31, showed Beauprez leading by 0.2 percentage points, other publicly released polling at the time of the Coloradoan's article showed Ritter leading by large margins. For example, a 9News/SurveyUSA poll -- released at 1:45 p.m. ET November 2, a day before the Coloradoan published its article -- showed Ritter with a 22-percentage-point lead. That poll was conducted October 30-November 1 and had a 3.8-percentage-point margin of error. A previous 9News/SurveyUSA poll, conducted October 20-22, showed Ritter with an 18-percentage-point lead and had a 4.1-percentage-point margin of error.

While two earlier polls did show Beauprez gaining ground within the margin of error* in comparison to previous versions of those polls, a third poll showed Ritter's lead growing. All three of these polls showed Ritter leading by double digits.

In his e-mail response to Colorado Media Matters, Moore also stated, “I believe that the media needs to be accountable. But to cherry pick tidbits that support a hypothesis while simply ignoring all other information to the contrary isn't good journalism and it's not good journalistic criticism.”

Colorado Media Matters has documented here, here, here, here, and here other instances of reporting and opinion in the Coloradoan that were not accurate, credible, or reliable and that advanced a conservative agenda.

Moore's November 11 response to Colorado Media Matters, reprinted with his permission:

It's interesting to note that Colorado Media Matters holds others to standards that it will not apply to itself. It undermines your watchdog role when you disregard standards you proclaim to uphold.

Colorado Media Matters said in a headline and the subsequent text that the Coloradoan responded to a CMM criticism by publishing a story on the religious beliefs of the three candidates in the 4th Congressional District race. No attempt was made to check with the Coloradoan on the story's history. There was no exhibition of even the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity by anyone at CMM. In fact, the story on the candidates' religious beliefs was a longstanding part of our election plan and had been scheduled to run before the article that Colorado Media Matters criticized. We held it to get other campaign news in. Bill Menezes [Colorado Media Matters editorial director] posts my contact information on his site, so I know he knows how to get hold of me. As a result, CMM made a false claim with no evidence to support that claim.

Secondly, CMM used a copyright Coloradoan photo on its Website, without requesting permission to do so. When I pointed this out to Bill, he made the false claim that they took the photo down before I sent my e-mail. (Even if the claim were true, Bill never explained how that would ameliorate his acknowledged error.) Bill also refused my suggestion that he post on his site his acknowledgment that CMM inappropriately used the photo and explain how the error occurred. The use of the photo is not a big deal in my book, because innocent mistakes happen. The refusal of a watchdog to hold itself to the same standard it applies to others is another matter.

The Coloradoan, particularly Kevin Darst, produced an impressive volume of work on the election. He provided unmatched reporting on the money that was being pumped in to the 4th Congressional District race. But CMM isn't interested in that. It is instead interested in focusing primarily on a couple of accurate statements in Kevin's reporting.

Two voters in the eastern plains cited Marilyn Musgrave's religion as a factor in their choice. That was an accurate statement. CMM would have liked us to follow up their comments with a statement that Angie Paccione also is a Christian. (No such demand was made for reportage of Eric Eidsness' faith, but then, he's not a Democrat.) Paccione's faith was not a secret to Coloradoan readers. Should we have mentioned it again in the story at hand? Probably. But in isolating stories in a vacuum, CMM creates a deliberately distorted view of the Coloradoan's coverage of the election, and does so to fulfill an agenda. The same applies to the criticism of Kevin's brief remark in a story that said Beauprez “could be” closing in on Ritter based on recent polls. By CMM's own admission, that rather nebulous statement is accurate in that there were polls that suggested Beauprez “could be” narrowing the lead. CMM apparently is disappointed that we didn't give a full accounting of the extant polling data in the story. Of course, that ignores any other reporting we had done on the polling in the governor's race, either on our own or through wire services. It ignores the fact that the story was not about polling. CMM also chooses not to criticize the fact that we made nearly an identical claim in the same paragraph about Paccione making apparent polling gains against Musgrave. There is no call for reporting the specific polls that led us to this conclusion. Such concerns arise with CMM only when it concludes a claim may not benefit Democrats.

As I've told Bill, I appreciate and respect what CMM is trying to do. CMM pointed out to us earlier this year that we had not reported the conclusions of an FEC investigation. That was welcome and valid criticism because we had missed that story. When readers, including CMM, point out such gaps in our coverage, we will respond.

I believe that the media needs to be accountable. But to cherry pick tidbits that support a hypothesis while simply ignoring all other information to the contrary isn't good journalism and it's not good journalistic criticism. Creating some sort of equivalence between Kevin Darst's reporting and, say, Gunny Bob's talk show also is shoddy criticism, in my opinion.

Bob Moore, bobmoore@coloradoan.com
Executive editor
Fort Collins Coloradoan

* According to former American Statistical Association president Fritz Scheuren, “a rule of thumb is to multiply the currently reported margin of error by 1.7 to obtain a more accurate estimate of the margin of error for the lead of one candidate over another. Thus, a reported 3 percent margin of error becomes about 5 percent and a reported 4 percent margin of error becomes about 7 percent when the size of the lead is being considered.”