On October 23, Colorado Media Matters wrote that in an article by reporter Joe Hanel, The Durango Herald 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.” Hanel's article described an ad produced by Gordon's campaign in which Gordon stated that he is “the only candidate in this race who doesn't take special interest money.” As Colorado Media Matters noted, the article provided no evidence to support or refute Coffman's claim and included no response from Gordon.

Responding on his own behalf to Colorado Media Matters, Hanel wrote that he “did not ask Ken Gordon for a counter quote because he, in essence, was making the original claim.” According to Hanel:

In his ad, he [Gordon] 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.

Hanel also wrote in his response, “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,” adding, “I did treat Coffman's claim critically in my reporting, if not my writing.”

Hanel noted that, according to the Institute on Money in State Politics' website, Gordon has received contributions from donors connected with particular industries:

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

That data appears to be a compilation of contributions from individual donors based on their reported occupations or employers. For example, the $1,600 in “Oil & Gas” industry contributions consists of three donations of $1,000, $500, and $100 from individuals who reported an oil-and-gas-related occupation.

Hanel acknowledged in his response that "[a]s far as I can tell, it is true that Gordon has not accepted Political Action Committee money."

Hanel's original article noted that Gordon says in his ad that “there are special interest sharks, like pharmaceutical and oil companies.” The article did not explain further what either Gordon or Coffman meant by “special interest” money. However, Gordon's campaign website states:

In 1992, I was elected to the House of Representatives. I ran for office because I wanted to help protect the environment. I knew that Colorado had a history of resource extraction -- mining, oil and gas, and now real estate development -- and I was concerned that if legislative campaigns were financed in large part by contributions from these special interests, it would be difficult to protect Colorado's awesome beauty.

For this reason, I made campaign finance reform a major part of my campaign. I was the only candidate that year -- in either party -- who did not take campaign contributions from the political action committees (PACs) of special interest groups. I have never taken a PAC contribution since then, and I will not take any in this campaign.

Hanel's October 24 response to Colorado Media Matters, reprinted with his permission:

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