TIPA - Truth In Political Advertising

Ad #10: TV Ad: "Bad For Colorado "
by The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

The nonpartisan Truth In Political Advertising Project -- www.TIPAP.org -- released its first analysis of political advertising in the nationally-watched U.S. Senate race between Republican businessman Pete Coors and Democratic Attorney General Ken Salazar.

The report is the first in a series which will be released almost daily during the last three weeks of the campaign and evaluates the accuracy, fairness, and relevance of the advertisement entitled, "Bad For Colorado." The advertisement was produced and sponsored by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The advertisement, itself, is available on the TIPA Web site.

The TIPA uses a "1" to "10" rating scale for Accuracy (with greater accuracy reflected by a higher rating), Fairness (with a higher rating indicating a greater degree of fairness), and Relevancy (with a higher rating meaning the advertisement was most relevant to the campaign). The Rating System is presented in detail on the TIPA Web site.

Aaron Harber, the Executive Director of the TIPA Project, summarized the analysis as follows. "Bad For Colorado" averaged a 6.64 in Accuracy (with a range of 2 to 10), a 5.84 in Fairness (with a range of 3 to 10), and a 5.38 in Relevance (with a range of 3 to 9).

Because the advertisement attacked Pete Coors and, as a result, the most surprising comment was from a Republican who stated, "This is a legitimate negative ad. Everything is true. Most of the ad simply is reading headlines." Almost as surprisingly, one Democrat on the Advisory Panel who supports Salazar, rated the ad low and opined, "I think it is relevant to talk about the candidate's past but this ad exaggerates and misleads because it does not acknowledge how Coors [Brewing Company] has improved its environmental sensitivity."

Based on the TIPA Rating System, the Accuracy of the advertisement is considered fairly accurate but somewhat misleading. The Fairness of the advertisement is considered minimally fair and reasonable but on the edge of what should be considered acceptable. In terms of Relevance, the advertisement was considered somewhat relevant but sloppy in its construction and not as closely related to campaign issues as it otherwise might be. The combined or Overall Rating, weighted in favor of Accuracy was 6.11.

Harber summarized the combined rating of 6.11 as follows, “Bad For Colorado” seems acceptable to those in the political arena but does not do a lot to convey critically important information to the voter. It is a minimally passable advertisement in respect to its specific and overall qualities.”

The TIPA's analysis includes the participation of members of its bipartisan 55-member Advisory Panel, all of whom are listed on the Web site. Members of the panel include elected and retired political officials, academics, members of the media, and advertising executives. The TIPA is believed to be the nation's first effort to evaluate advertisements not only for their accuracy but for their fairness and relevance by involving highly partisan participants in the evaluation process. Some of the more interesting comments from Advisory Panel members include the following.

Democrat. I think it is relevant to talk about the candidate's past, but this ad exaggerates and misleads because it does not acknowledge how Coors has improved its environmental sensitivity and has created many jobs in a variety of ways for the state.

Democrat. From what I know of Coors Brewing Company, the information presented is accurate. However, the ad is unfair because of what it leaves unsaid. Coors has worked to try to prevent contamination of the environment and has been recognized for its efforts. Now days, it is generally considered a good company to work for. No one wants to lay people off, but markets change, companies change direction, and sometimes it's unavoidable.

Independent. This is how a TV ad ought to be delivered, based strictly and almost literally on newspaper headlines; assuming they are accurate, so is the ad. The majority of the attack, about pollution by Coors Brewing, isn't as relevant to Coors' political campaign as the final part about job losses under his leadership, since he defines himself as a job creator.

Republican. The problems that Coors has had with water and air are the same that thousands of other companies have as we keep changing the laws or when accidents happen. The more important thing is how do they respond and I think Coors is one of our best corporate citizens as demonstrated by their response. The jobs issue is one based on the same economic issues being faces by companies all across America -- a situation that the government has very little say in. Fairness: The obvious distortion of the facts in this ad are purely designed to harm Mr. Coors. Relevance: While jobs are relevant, the government can't do much about them--they claim responsibility when job growth is good and get beat up when growth is bad. Because of this, the government has helped the public to ascribe power to the government that it doesn't really have.

Independent. This ad is a great example of a key problem with political advertising: It raises important, complex issues but leaves no room for discussion of them. Most of the charges in the ad are literally true (a major exception is the Coors/Molson merger, which has not yet happened, but is likely to. Details about the merger results are accurate, at least as reported so far.) One charge that "Coors Brewery fined for polluting air" seems to be based at least in part on a controversial 1993 Colorado Department of Health penalty of $1.05 million for violating state air pollution laws. This was controversial at the time because regulators learned of the pollution through a voluntary self-audit Coors conducted in 1992 that established that brewing produced far more toxic emissions than either the industry or regulators previously thought. Coors at the time said the punishment was unfair, according to a sympathetic account by " Washington Monthly" (June 1997) that argued that such self-audits should be encouraged and privileged. I am not an expert on the environmental issues involved. I do think that the self-audit by Coors, and its subsequent settlement (a $100,000 fine, an economic benefit payment and relinquishing some pollution allowance, among other things) is something worth discussing in a public forum. The quality of Coors as a corporate citizen is certainly an important campaign issue, as is its role as a polluter. How such a company works to clean up its problems and how the regulatory process works are also important subjects that deserve careful discussion. A campaign ad isn't designed to produce much serious discussion at all, and that's a pity.