TIPA - Truth In Political Advertising

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

The report is part of a series of reports which are being released on a daily basis during the final days of the campaign. This report evaluates the accuracy, fairness, and relevance of the advertisement entitled, "Protect." The advertisement was produced and sponsored by the Salazar For Senate Campaign. The advertisement, itself, currently is available on the TIPA Web site.

“Protect” was a relatively uncontroversial advertisement. It attracted little interest from Advisory Panel members and was seen as a “defensive” ad in response to the very offensive and low-rated “Summitville” advertisement promulgated by the 527 group named Americans For Job Security.

The “Summitville” ad was concerned the nadir of the campaign’s advertising. Rather than responding to it on a point-by-point basis, it appears the Salazar campaign replied by stressing Salazar’s accomplishments while serving as Colorado ’s Attorney General.

The advertisement talks about Salazar’s “extraordinary record of accomplishment” using the theme, “Attorney General Ken Salazar has fought to protect our land, water, and people.” The claim, “He won the longest jail term against an environmental polluter in our history” is a direct response to the “Summitville” advertisements claims that Salazar bungled that mining disaster and had failed to properly hold responsible the company and its officers.

The claim Salazar, “wrote the law that created Great Outdoors Colorado ” resonates with those familiar with GOCO but not every Coloradan even knows what GOCO is.

“Protected Colorado ’s water from out-of-state interests,” is a very complex claim given the multi-state litigation which occurred during his tenure and which continues to this day. It is tangential to the assertions in “Summitville.”

The advertisement then switches gears to address the “Summitville” ad but not from a point-by-point perspective. Instead, the question is asked, “So what are these attack ads against Ken Salazar?” And immediately answered, “…Slime… Sleazy… Slur.”

What is notable about the rejoinder of “Slime… Sleazy… Slur” and the newspaper sources depicted for these conclusions is that these quotes were made in reference to the “Summitville” ad and were not directed at an entire group of ads, as “Protect” deceptively intimates. That is, “Protect” appears to be designed to help ward off a multitude of attack ads against Salazar and uses the quotes related to “Summitville” to defend against other attack ads even those the sources quoted were not referring to those ads.

The advertisement ends with the tagline, “Ken Salazar for Senate… Experience money can’t buy.” This is a poke at Salazar’s wealthy opponent, Pete Coors, who is being accused via this advertisement, albeit in a slightly veiled manner, as attempting to “buy” the election due to his lack of experience in government.

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. The analysis for “No Surprise” can be summarized as follows.

ACCURACY = 7.5 out of 10.0. This advertisement generally was accurate and did not mislead viewers or misstate the facts in any material way.

FAIRNESS = 9.0 out of 10.0. This ad was rated as very fair in all respects.

RELEVANCE = 8.0 out of 10.0 This advertisement was considered to include quite relevant subject matter.

ACCURACY RATING DISCUSSION

A 7.0 Accuracy rating is described by the TIPA Rating System as follows: Generally accurate (approximately +90%) with one or two key facts subject to misinterpretation or misunderstanding – and they clearly should have been corrected before the advertisement was used.

An 8.0 Accuracy rating is described by the TIPA Rating System as follows: Very accurate (approximately +95%) with one or two facts unintentionally unclear or subject to misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

The ”Protect” advertisement’s rating of 7.5 was exactly between the two ratings and, compared to most other advertisements rated by the TIPA Project, is one of the highest-rated ads broadcast in the campaign as far as accuracy is concerned. With the consideration of the slight misuse of the newspaper quotations regarding all attack ads rather than the single one the newspapers’ comments were directed towards, this rating seems quite reasonable.

ACCURACY RATING CONCLUSION. The “Protect” advertisement is rated as highly accurate, especially in comparison with all of the other advertisements broadcast during this campaign.

FAIRNESS RATING DISCUSSION

A 9.0 Fairness rating is very high for advertisements in this campaign and usually is described as follows: Bends over backwards to be fair and kind to an opponent; intentionally portrays the opponent in a good light; makes no statements which could be unfairly construed.

The ad never criticizes Pete Coors directly and, when it does go on the offensive, is directed at the “attack ads” launched at Ken Salazar, irrespective of whether or not they came from third parties or the Coors campaign.

The TIPA’s analysis is that the Fairness rating by the Advisory Panel’s members was higher than the TIPA staff would have concluded but the difference was minimal and, because Republicans and Democrats alike rated the advertisement so highly, the rating was considered valid.

FAIRNESS RATING CONCLUSION. “Protect” is a fair advertisement in all respects. This advertisement received a very high Fairness rating compared to many of the others in the campaign.

RELEVANCE RATING DISCUSSION

An 8.1 Relevance rating is indicative that the general opinion was the advertisement was very relevant to the U.S. Senate campaign. The relevance rating was at the highest end of the entire set of campaign ads.

According to the TPA Rating System, an 8.0 rating is defined as follows: Quite relevant and appropriate (+90%); the subject matter of the advertisement involves one or more topics which are critically important at this time and are on the minds of most voters but something minor and irrelevant may still have been included in the advertisement.

RELEVANCE RATING CONCLUSION. The advertisement attempts to tackle a number of issues and all are relevant to the campaign.

OVERALL TIPA RATING

The TIPA’s structure for calculating an overall rating is based on the following distribution:

Accuracy Rating: 45% of the Overall Score.

Fairness Rating: 35% of the Overall Score.

Relevance Rating: 20% of the Overall Score.

“Protect” received an Overall Rating of 8.1. This is a very high rating on the 1 to 10 scale. This indicates widespread satisfaction with the advertisement’s accuracy, fairness, and relevance. With the minor exception of the inference that all attack ads against Ken Salazar are “slime, sleazy, slurs,” the advertisement meets any reasonable standards of practice the TIPA would like to see candidates adhere to on a consistent basis when campaigning.

(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.