The Denver Post buried a key paragraph in its front-page story today showing that Michael Hancock apparently did not use his cellphone to call a prostitution ring. The Post reported toward the end of the story:
Additionally, Hancock's cellphone was frequently in use at times when the appointment logs alleged he was engaged with a prostitute. Of the nine possible times over the three years most likely covered by log books, Hancock's cellphone was in use during five.
If you're KHOW talk-radio host Peter Boyles, you'd probably say the cellphone was part of the sex.
Then Boyles could talk about phone sex in the pre-Twitter days, and experts like Scottie Ewing could be summoned for their opinions on what Hancock and the prostitute could have been doing with the cellphone.
And Rep. Anthony Weiner's view could be solicited.
Or better yet, the carnival barkers could fill an hour speculating on what Weiner or a prostitute might say about this.
Maybe that's joke, and maybe it's not, but it gets at the problem with this story. You can't kill it, unless you're a responsible journalist and you say, enough is enough.
Boyles won't say this. That's why he's still looking for Obama's Social Security number, education records, etc., etc., etc. And he'll keep looking and talking as long as people listen.
But the mainstream media, like the Denver Post, which hyped this rotten story unfairly, should back off of this drama now and stop the strange front-page play that it's been giving it.
You can imagine more developments coming, like interviews with prostitutes who of course should be asked what Hancock was doing with his cellphone during sex, if the appointment happened when Hancock was using his phone.
And you can imagine others coming forward with who knows what.
But with the alleged crime itself being such a petty matter, and the issue of lying about it now as resolved as it will ever be, it's time to refrain from giving future developments more legitimacy than they deserve, as the Denver media has been doing so far.