CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 14, 2011 11:57 PM UTC

Post hyping Hancock story

  • by: Jason Salzman

Some carnival barkers and radio chatterers are saying there was some sort of agreement between the Michael Hancock campaign and The Denver Post that went something like this: The Post wouldn’t print the story about his alleged liaisons with prostitutes, if Hancock agreed to turn over his cell phone and bank records to reporters.

I was glad to hear Denver Post reporter Chuck Plunkett, on the Caplis and Silverman Show yesterday, deny that any such agreement existed, because this obviously would have constituted journalism at its worst.

“We made no such commitment,” Plunkett told Caplis and Silverman. “If we could have gotten, for example, through our other research and other journalistic efforts, some kind of third party corroboration, one way or the other, that was unimpeachable, you bet we would have gone to press with it.”

So Plunkett confirmed on the radio that if The Post had a credible story about Hancock prior to the election, they would have rushed to publish it. But, as Plunkett’s big boss Dean Singleton told Caplis and Silverman June 7, no “reputable” news organization would have published a story based on the information they had on hand at the time.

And here’s the strange part. After a series of front page stories in The Post, warmed with hot air out from some local TV stations, the facts of this story haven’t changed much. A piece of paper with Hancock’s misspelled name povided by a pimp, plus his cell phone number and some dates.

That was’t much then or now.

Yet, the story went from unreportable to the front page because, according to Plunkett, Hancock decided not to honor, as Plunkett put it yesterday, a “gentleman’s agreement,” to hand over his unvetted bank and cell-phone records?

On the radio, Plunkett sounded offended that Hancock didn’t turn over all his records, per the gentleman’s agreement, which Hancock’s campaign manager denies making.

But even if the gentleman’s agreement was broken, that doesn’t make this petty story all that big a deal, if you look at the facts on the table. Giving it so much hype, and assigning The Post’s top writers to it, and continuing to do so, is a journalistic embarrassment.

I’m not saying Hancock’s alleged shift in stance regarding the documents wasn’t news. The Post made the right call to air the story, along with the news that Hancock’s laywers asked for police evidence. There’s a little news there. But this might have merited a few paragraphs because the core of the story remains empty.

Going forward, The Post should take a breath and distinguish between significant advances in this story and next-to-meaningless, but titillating, developments.

There could be potential big news here, like real evidence proving Hancock is lying about paying prostitutes, but spare us the hype.


9 thoughts on “Post hyping Hancock story

  1. I agree.  There has been nothing resembling real evidence that Hancock paid a prostitute for sex.  If he did, that’s worth reporting.  But until solid evidence is put forth, this is a story that should end.

  2. Especially one that is supposed to dispel the story to begin with?

    And the Post’s agreement to sit on the story in a quid-pro-quo (which was clear in the video interview on Hancock’s porch) was not irresponsible?

    This is a weird piece.  

  3. I’ll be the first to say I’m glad it appears my doubts about Michael Hancock’s story appear to be unfounded.

    The DP just posted this story stating that they have the unedited phone records from Hancock’s cellphone for the period in question, and while the review isn’t complete, so far there is absolutely no indication that either Hancock or Players ever called each other.

    While other media outlets may have overhyped the story, I think the Post has done a very balanced job of pursuing the truth.  And it appears that Hancock may finally extinguish any doubts about his veracity or personal integrity.

    I was ready to believe the worst, but overjoyed that I’m wrong. My sincere apologies to the Mayor-Elect.

      1. (and I don’t mean you personally WLJ, but all the folks feeling a bit of remorse and reconsideration)

        Really want to make amends — do a little bit of pennance?

        How about pushing the Fishwrapper (and the other local sewage discharge outlets) to push as hard now to get the real story, the who and the why and the timing, of the smear and be just as front-page diligent in their coverage of that?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

138 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!