TIPA - Truth In Political Advertising

ACCURACY = 6.3 out of 10.0. This advertisement is nominally accurate (approximately 80%) but with one to three key facts subject to misinterpretation or misunderstanding likely to have been intentional as part of a “smokescreen of truth” used to pursue a falsified argument.

FAIRNESS = 7.2 out of 10.0. This ad received provides a clear and straightforward representation of Salazar’s position on health care issues.

RELEVANCE = 7.8 out of 10.0. This advertisement was considered to be quite relevant and addresses one or more topics that are critically important to voters.

OVERALL = 6.9 out of 10.0. This advertisement barely meets the standards of practice to which the TIPA would like to see candidates adhere.

Rising health care costs have many Colorado families afraid for their futures. “Margo” begins with an exasperated woman named Margo Rhyme saying, “Our health insurance company wanted to double our rates, and we just couldn’t pay.”

The scene then cuts to Salazar saying, “The cost of health care is crushing Colorado ’s families. Why has Washington just ignored this problem?” This particular statement drew fire from a few Advisory Panel members, prompting one of them to comment, “Washington hasn't ‘ignored’ the issue of health care. It's one of the most hotly and routinely debated topics.”

The advertisement continues to promote Ken Salazar as a champion of the everyday man and woman, quoting his victory against big drug companies as solid evidence of his fight for the common family.

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 rating scores for the advertisement “Margo”.

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. “Margo” received an accuracy score of 6.3 out of 10.0. This characterizes the ad as nominally accurate (approximately 80%) but with one to three key facts subject to misinterpretation or misunderstanding and such misinterpretation or misunderstandings likely to have been intentional as part of a “smokescreen of truth” used to pursue a falsified argument.

Referring to Salazar’s assertion that Washington is “ignoring the problem” of health care, one Independent Panel Member opined, “The slightly reduced accuracy rating reflects the blanket statement that Washington is doing nothing.”

An Independent panelist stated, “I'd love to know if ‘Margo’ who thinks Ken Salazar is ‘one of us’ knows that his federal income tax returns show his income was nearly $800,000 last year. Sure it was no where near what Coors makes but that's not saying much. I have the sneaking suspicion that if Ken Salazar's insurance rates doubled it wouldn't put too much of a crimp in his lifestyle. None of these guys are "one of us" if they were they wouldn't be running for office."

Overall, Republicans rated the Accuracy of the advertisement (5.0) noticeably below the level of Democrats (7.3) and Independents (8.0).

FAIRNESS RATING. This ad received a barely acceptable rating for fairness – 7.2 out of 10. It provides a generally fair, albeit brief overview of Salazar’ position on health care. There is only one indirect reference to Salazar’s opponent Pete Coors in the entire advertisement, which comes with the closing line, “Experience money just can’t buy.” This subtle attack prompted one Republican Advisory Panel member to comment, “The close of the ad is inappropriate because it implies that Ken's opponent can be bought. There is nothing in Pete's record to indicate that his integrity is in any way questionable.”

A Republican panelist commented, “This ad correctly states a problem, offers no solution, but somehow wants viewers to believe Salazar cares. This one insults the intelligence of viewers.”

Mirroring the partisan differences in the Accuracy rating, Republicans rated the Fairness of the advertisement (5.8) well below the level of Democrats (8.0) and Independents (10.0).

RELEVANCE RATING. This advertisement received a Relevance rating of 7.8 out of 10 for its pertinent focus on health care, one of the top concerns in the minds of many voters. One Republican Panel member said, “Health care costs continue to be an issue of import to most people. (The question of whether it is the government’s problem is a whole different topic that could relate to the relevance, but I suspect most people think it is properly a government concern.)”

Another panelist opined, “Health care bills fly around the capital, there is simply no way to reach consensus.”

The partisan gap can be seen again in the Relevance rating, with Republicans rating the advertisement a 5.8, almost half the rating of Democrats (9.3) and Independents (10.0).

OVERALL RATING. “Margo” meets the bare minimal acceptable standards the TIPA would like campaigns to adhere to in their advertising. Its overall score of 6.9 is disappointingly one of the most highly rated ads in the Coors-Salazar 2004 campaign.

(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.