TIPA - Truth In Political Advertising

ACCURACY = 7.4 out of 10.0. This advertisement received a decent accuracy score relative to most other ads. Ken Salazar, in a persuasive and honest style, addresses issues that are of importance to voters of Colorado and his points of disagreement with Pete Coors by looking the viewer in the eye and stating his beliefs.

FAIRNESS = 7.6 out of 10.0. This ad also received a relatively good score for fairness. Although Pete Coors’ position may have been overstated or slightly slanted to Salazar’s benefit, Salazar surprisingly begins the advertisement by mentioning Pete Coors similarly cares for Colorado even though their beliefs are different.

RELEVANCE = 8.6 out of 10.0. This advertisement received quite a good score for relevance from all quarters. Issues that Salazar mentions are all key issues on the minds of voters.

OVERALL = 7.7 out of 10.0. This ad received a relatively good overall score. Its positive approach gave viewers a refreshing reminder that campaigns can produce advertisements that do not demean their opponents and still effectively persuade voters.

“I believe deeply in Colorado , and I know Pete Coors does too…” Ken Salazar.

The positive tone this advertisement begins with lets viewers know this is just more than political bargaining. Ken Salazar, in this ad, attempts to illustrate to voters he is a real human being and that he authentically believes his position on the issues will produce better results for Coloradoans.

“Difference” provides viewers with a positive outlook on Salazar as well as a clear understanding as to how Salazar feels on important issues.

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 “Difference.”

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. The accuracy of the advertisement was reflected in its very respectable score of 7.4. Salazar highlights his position on issues and then compares his standpoint on certain issues to Pete Coors’ position, although Coors’ position is somewhat oversimplified and exaggerated at times.

Addressing the issue of accuracy, one independent Advisory Panel member commented, “This is a very appealing ad, with a classic end-of-the campaign look to it. It's accurate, though one could quibble with his list of differences -- does Coors really want to double the Deficit? (Salazar says, 'I want to cut the deficit, not double it,' after introducing a series of contrasts by saying there are 'real differences between us.') But that comment is fair game, because Coors strongly supports President Bush's economic policies, which have helped bring about a significant Deficit. It's a fair ad.”

This opinion brings up a particularly relevant point on the issue of the Federal Deficit, although it could be debated that no politician would intentionally be in support of doubling the Deficit and Pete Coors has never announced he is in favor of such a path. Coors has argued that cutting taxes further, while potentially increasing the Deficit, should spur rapid economic growth which, in turn, would mean higher gross tax collections for the Federal Government.

Overall, the Independents scored this ad highest, with an excellent Accuracy rating (9.5), Democrats gave it a fairly decent Accuracy rating (7.3) while Republicans, on the other hand, thought this advertisement was merely average for a political campaign in its accurate reporting and did not rate it favorably (5.2). The more than 4-point range of perception of Accuracy was very significant and showed a divisive set of opinions about the advertisement.

FAIRNESS RATING. The positive outlook of the advertisement, combined with the fact Coors was not negatively attacked in a hostile manner, produced a relatively good fairness score – 7.6 out of 10. Overall, it appeared to be a fair comparison of two candidates’ positions on important issues in the race for the Senate, although Republican panelists would not agree with that conclusion.

One Democratic Advisory Panel member noted, “This was a good ad -- a little fluff, but marks some key differences. I like that he says Pete cares about Colorado as well. I don’t think it’s true, however, that Pete wants to double the Deficit. Overall, it’s a good ad.”

Pointing out that Coors also believes deeply in Colorado, and not just the well-being of his corporation, gives points to Salazar and boosts the fairness rating of the ad. Another Democratic panelist expressed this idea, describing the advertisement as, "A fair comparison, which begins with a compliment to Pete Coors from Ken Salazar."

This approach – i.e., to first compliment Pete Coors – seemed to completely neutralize any unfairness considerations as perceived by Democratic or Independent members of the Advisory Panel although the Republican members understandably believed the compliment was not sufficient to overcome what they felt was the false and unfair assertion that Coors wanted to double the Deficit. The technique used by the advertisement was accurately perceived by the Republicans but it worked on the Democrats and Independents (i.e., by being nice at first, the advertisement got away with a statement and accusation which clearly was false). The TIPA Project’s staff rating for the advertisement, in terms of Fairness, was lower than the average given by the Advisory Panel but was not integrated into this analysis.

As illustrated by the previous discussion, the results of the Fairness ratings were seemingly based on partisan positions. Again, the Independent Advisory Panel members scored the advertisement very high (9.0) for Fairness. The Democratic Advisory Panel members were close behind with a very good score (8.7), but the Republican members gave it only a score (5.0), which not only is not an acceptable rating but demonstrated a very significant four-point gap between themselves and the other Advisory Panel members.

RELEVANCE RATING. Taxes, the Federal Deficit, land use, water rights, and health care are all key issues raised by Salazar in the advertisement and, thus the ad received a solid Relevance score of 8.6. The TIPA staff again notes that the ad has questionable, misleading content (i.e., whether or not Pete Coors really wants to double the Deficit) but this does not detract from the fact most of the issues raised are quite relevant to the race. It is important for campaigns to understand that not only do voters want the truth on facts, they also resent being misled with exaggerated statements, and in this regard Salazar falls short. It seems, however, that those who were not Republican members of the Panel were willing to overlook this discrepancy.

The range of opinion about the Relevance of the advertisement was less varied than the scores for Accuracy or Fairness. Republicans (7.5) and Democrats (8.3) both thought the ad was very relevant. The Independents, however, thought the ad was as relevant as any possibly could be. This was reflected in their unanimity in giving it the maximum rating (10.0).

OVERALL RATING. The Advisory Panel clearly saw “Difference” as an appealing advertisement. It also was seen as a “nice break” from the avalanche of negative advertisements otherwise seen in the campaign. This contrast, alone, may have resulted in inflated ratings simply because anything with a primarily positive them was going to be welcomed by Panel members and the public alike at this point in the campaign. As a result, the advertisement received a high overall rating of 7.7. Viewers believed issues of importance were brought to their attention, and the advertisement ended the campaign with a classy, positive outlook.

One Republican member of the Advisory Panel explained, “The white hat on Ken Salazar obviously means he is a ‘Good Guy,’ I suppose. This ad, while not nearly as bad as the Car Wreck commercial, does rank pretty high on the eye-rolling scale. I think it attempts to show Salazar as a good, hard-working, honest, regular guy but as a politician, too, but he does imply things that aren't true. If we're looking for purely non-attack ads this is pretty good but if they were all like this, what fun would they be?”

Ken Salazar is portrayed as a good guy, a Colorado cowboy (hence his white cowboy hat and his placement standing in an open field for the advertisement), to show that he is an average citizen who is looking out for Colorado’s best interests. The high scores for this ad reflect practices that the TIPA would like to see more consistently applied to political advertising. Although, as the last opinion underscores, attack ads do increase voters’ attention and arguably are more effectively than flowery positive ads that may appear clichéd, this ad scored well simply because of the relief it provided.

(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.