TIPA - Truth In Political Advertising

ACCURACY = 4.5 out of 10.0. This advertisement falls far below all standards of decency. Although Coors has addressed lowering the drinking age, his position cannot be linked to the youth dying prematurely in car accidents.

FAIRNESS = 2.7 out of 10.0. This ad received a deplorable score for fairness. Blaming Pete Coors for driving accidents is completely unfair and malicious. The attack ad intends to instill fear on the public and scare them into voting for Salazar.

RELEVANCE = 3.2 out of 10.0. This ad received one of the lowest ratings for relevance in this entire Senate race, and has nothing to do with the real issues or candidates involved.

OVERALL = 3.6 out of 10.0. This ad received an unsatisfactory overall score. In no means does it meet any standard held by TIPA, by politicians, or by the public. It is unfair, inaccurate and, in general, an unpleasant, petty attack against Pete Coors.

The politicians that funded this advertisement, Citizens for a Strong Senate, appealed to the lowest common denominator – a parent’s fear of their teen’s death from an automobile accident - to attack Pete Coors. For thirty seconds horrific pictures are shown of car wrecks, while a somber narrator conveys that Pete Coors wants to lower the drinking age to increase his profits.

The ad communicates that lowering the drinking age will lead to in an increase in teen deaths, an issue that Coors is not concerned with. A direct quote from the ad asserts, “It doesn’t matter if it’s bad for kids, just as long as it’s good for business.”

A key problem with this advertisement is that no where does it describe the nature of the car accidents shown, who was driving the destroyed cars, and if drinking was even involved. Citizens for a Strong Senate is sending the message that if the drinking age is lowered, over 200,000 teens will have the capacity to purchase Coors beverages, and then they will drink and drive their way to an early death.

Based on the ratings provided by Advisory Panel members and weighted so Democrats and Republicans were equal in number from a statistical averaging perspective, the TIPA has compiled a set of ratings for the advertisement "Car Wreck”.

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 U.S. Senate campaign). The Rating System is presented in detail on the TIPA Web site.

ACCURACY RATING. “Car Wreck” received a poor accuracy rating of 4.5. The ad was fairly accurate on the claim that Pete Coors suggested lowering the drinking age; however, correlating this with teenage auto deaths is a malicious and fallacious association.

In alignment with this analysis, one Advisory Panel member opined, “This is so bad. The most obvious issue aside, who knows what caused those car accidents in the first place - plenty of adults and 18 year olds wreck their cars like that fooling around with the radio, talking on their cell phone, falling asleep at the wheel, etc. Addressing the obvious - this really is a disgusting commercial. Salazar should immediately and publicly decry the intent of this commercial.”

Republicans rated the advertisement’s accuracy much lower (4.5) than Democrats (7.0), while Independents were severely disappointed with the accuracy and gave it a meager 2.0.

FAIRNESS RATING. Citizens for a Strong Senate maliciously used shocking images of car wrecks and fear of teenage mortality to attack Pete Coors and, thus, the ad received an extremely low fairness rating – 2.7 out of 10. By using horrific images to establish a false relationship between Pete Coors and an increase in teen deaths, the integrity of the entire political process is damaged in the minds of voters.

In agreement with this assertion, an Advisory Panel member stated, “This ad is extremely unfair, as it offers emotion-laden images that dovetail with recent reports of Colorado young people dying in alcohol-related incidents. Coors was quoted in 1997 as speculating that lowering the drinking age might help kids learn to drink responsibly. This is a legitimate subject for open public debate -- not for emotional twisting in an attack ad. Whether his company would benefit from a lowered drinking age is also a legitimate subject for public discussion -- again, not in this forum.”

Another Panel member expressed, “The quote was an off-hand remark to a casual question on Meet the Press. It was not a major policy statement, nor is it something that Coors is pursuing. Like the pictures of aborted fetuses, the pictures of car crashes are intended for shock value, to appeal to the fear and horror of losing your child. It wants you to base your vote on this fear, not on a rational analysis of the two candidate's major issue stances.”

All three parties agreed that the ad was unacceptably unfair. Although the Democrats scored it highest (4.5), Republicans gave it an even lower score (2.0). Independents were even more disgusted with the fairness of the ad, giving it a 1.5.

RELEVANCE RATING. Based on the election’s key issues, this advertisement received a pathetic relevancy rating of 3.2, The race for the Senate should address major issues that are of real concern to voters, such as the economy, health care, education, etc.

A panel member, who rated the relevance of this ad at 1.0 noted. “Coors is indeed in favor of lowering the drinking age. However, the notion that he's in favor of hurting children is an unfair and brutal leap of logic.”

Surprisingly, the Relevance of the advertisement was scored highest by Republicans (5.0). Democrats scored it at a 3.5, and Independents, keeping consistent with their overall disgust for the ad rated it an even lower 1.0.

OVERALL RATING. This advertisement’s sole malicious intent is to instill fear of Pete Coors into the audience. This is reflected in the overall score that the ad received (3.6). TIPA believes this ad should be publicly denounced by both campaigns and pulled from the air immediately.

One panelist summarized TIPA’s analysis in his statement, “This ad is despicable. It is beyond the pale in being low, mean-spirited and downright dirty and misleading. If I could hold someone accountable for stooping this low, I would like to chat with them out in the woodshed.”

(C) Copyright 2004 by the Democracy & Media Education Foundation. All rights reserved. Reproduction, duplication, transmission, or conveyance of this document – in whole or in part – without the express written consent of the DMEF is strictly prohibited. Bona fide print and electronic Press organizations, however, may quote this Report as long as proper attribution is given (i.e., “The Truth In Political Advertising Project”) and the quotation or reference accurately reflects the contents and conclusions of this Report. For questions, please call Zachary Adler at (303) 449-5043 or send an e-mail to Zachary@TIPAP.org. Thank you.