Ad #6: No Surprise
by Ken Salazar for U.S. Senate
TRUTH IN POLITICAL ADVERTISING
PROJECT RATING REPORT
This is the third 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, "No Surprise." The
advertisement was produced and sponsored by the Salazar For
Senate Campaign. The advertisement, itself, currently
is available on the TIPA Web site.
“No Surprise” was
the beneficiary of more interest from Advisory Panel members than
any advertisement to date. Approximately half of the entire Panel
rated the ad and the participation from Panel members categorized
as unaffiliated or independent was higher than any other advertisement
rated by the TIPA to date. Surprisingly, the number of Democratic
Advisory Panel members who responded was identical to the number
of Republican who rated the ad.
“No Surprise” begins
with a controversial quote from Pete Coors in which he states, “I
don’t know what a common man is.” The ad includes video
footage of Coors speaking these exact words. The quote is used twice
in the advertisement. This usage created a two-part controversy.
First, the footage was taken at a League
of Women Voters debate for which the League had prohibited candidates
and others from using the audio and video the League had arranged to
be recorded at the debate. The League’s perspective was this
prohibition on the use of its own taping of the event extended to the
candidates and third parties. In fact, the League notified the TIPA
Project and registered a protest regarding what it felt was the unauthorized
use of the event. The League’s President, Ms. Lorie Young, is
a Member of the TIPA Advisory Panel.
The TIPA investigated the claim and concluded
the League’s intent definitely was to prohibit the recording
of the event and the subsequent use of such recordings by the candidates.
The TIPA also concluded the League’s motivation for this policy
was to ensure the integrity of its debates and its future invitations
by assuring candidates that League forums would not be used against
them.
The TIPA discovered, however, that a number
of other parties – including members of the Press – recorded
the debate and that there was no enforcement against such third party
recordings. There also was not any evidence of an announcement regarding
any agreement to prohibit all recording outside of that being done
by the League, itself.
The problem uncovered by the TIPA was that
the League’s prohibition appeared to be limited to how its own
recording could be used. It appears everyone complied with the restrictions
placed by the League on its own recording. Therefore, the Salazar campaign
did not violate the letter of any agreement with the League although
the League certainly felt violated by the campaign’s use of footage
even though the Salazar campaign shot the footage on its own, in a
public setting, along with others who recorded the session.
The second controversy was focused on the
advertisement’s use of the quotation from Coors in which he says, “I
don’t know what a common man is.” The quotation clearly
is intended to posit that multi-millionaire Pete Coors is out of touch
with most Colorado voters and was caught making that admission. The
Salazar campaign’s attempt appears to be to exploit their belief
that most Colorado voters will support Salazar if they see Coors as
an out-of-touch, rich, elitist who does not know or understand most
Coloradans. While this exploitation of class is not laudatory, the
real problem is the Coors quote is used to misstate what the candidate
actually was trying to say.
The thesis of the Salazar campaign, which
cannot withstand even nominal scrutiny, is that a wealthy person cannot
understand the needs and desires of people who are financially less
fortunate than him- or herself. There is absolutely no proof that a
wealthy person cannot have such an understanding. Whether or not wealthy
people in general are sympathetic or a specific wealthy person is sympathetic
to the plight of the poor or even the middle class actually is a separate
issue from whether or not wealthy people understand or a specific wealthy
person understands that plight.
Ironically, the converse is likely to be
more accurate. That is, poor or even middle class Americans are less
likely to be sympathetic to the “plight” or problems of
a wealthy person or of wealthy people in general (i.e., because they
rationally would assume that wealth allows such people to solve problems
easily as compared to those who struggle with financial challenges
daily). Hence, the Salazar campaign has turned reality on its
head by making an argument regarding what different economic strata
may understand about each other – as opposed to how they might
feel, if such a collective sentiment even exists.
At the League of Women Voters’ debate,
Coors actually was using the claim at the beginning of his argument
explaining what he believes a “common man” is. Admittedly,
his phrasing was not artful. Immediately following the quote – which
was part of a statement Coors was making to defend himself against
an accusation made by Salazar at the debate – Coors then goes
on to explain what he believes the definition of a “common man” is
and argues that, indeed, he qualifies as a “common man.”
Again, while Coors’ ultimate conclusion
may be a stretch (there are few Democrats or Republicans whose first
words when describing Pete Coors would be “He’s a common
man”), his point was that he had the experience and sentiments
of what he believed a “common man” actually was. Here is
what Coors said.
"I don't know what a
common man is," Coors said. "A common man is somebody
who lives in this country that works hard to provide jobs for
others, who works, either providing for others or working for
someone else. I've done both."
The problem actually was created by Coors
when he began by somewhat misstating his premise. Rather than saying, “I
don’t know what a common man is” to set up his point, he
should have said something such as, “What is a ‘common
man?’” His intent was clear, however, and the Salazar campaign
unfairly misused the quote out of context.
Furthermore, to argue that Coors does not
understand the plight of the “common man” likely is quite
specious. The real issue is, how do the two candidates define that
plight, what are its components, which of the issues are most significant,
and what do each expect to do about that plight and those issues?
The majority of the advertisement’s
substantive points almost got lost in the controversy and these are
far less objectionable. The advertisement starts with the phrase “Pete
Coors has a problem.” Then the key phrase “I don’t
know what a common man is” in the form of what appears to be
home video-quality footage is played. This is followed by statements
such as “Coors can’t understand that middle class families
are struggling.” “Coors opposes letting you buy cheaper
drugs from Canada… No surprise… He’s backed by
hundreds of thousands of dollars from the big drug and insurance companies.”
The advertisement then switches tracks
and talks about the record of Ken Salazar, as Colorado’s Attorney
General, his going after price-fixing by drug companies, and emphasizes
Salazar’s independence from special interests as well as the
argument that he has “experience money just can’t buy” yet
another dig at Coors’ wealth.
The members of the TIPA Advisory Panel
had much to say about the advertisement. Once again, many members of
the TIPA Advisory Panel demonstrated their capacity to be objective
about the advertisements they review, despite their political affiliations – with
Republicans not being in lock-step regarding the ad and Democrats not
automatically arguing it was accurate and fair.
Please note that the TIPA keeps all individual
ratings and comments strictly confidential but publishes overall ratings
and uses quotations from Advisory Panel members in a manner which does
not allow them to be personally identified.
One Democratic panelist questioned the
validity of the numbers. He wrote, “I would like to know
if the League of Women Voters quote was out of context. I would like
to know if the allegation of ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ is
at least within some margin of accuracy.” The dollar
figure is in reference to an accusation the advertisement makes about
the financial backers of the Coors campaign.
Another normally highly-partisan Democrat
stated, “I don't know for sure but I am betting that
the phrase about the common man is lifted from context and that Coors
was actually trying to make a statement that was positive towards people
by saying that no one is common.”
A third Democratic opinion was, “Coloradans
are smart enough to recognize that Coors' statement ‘I don't
know what a common man is’ was taken out of context in this
ad and then repeated over and over as if we were too dumb to notice
the ad creators' spin attempt. It's mean-spirited.”
RATINGS
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 = 5.2 out of 10.0. Partially
inaccurate and misleading but containing a majority of accurate facts.
FAIRNESS = 4.5 out of 10.0. Barely
fair; bordering on unacceptable just based on fairness issues alone.
RELEVANCE = 6.2 out of 10.0 Truly
relevant subject matter’s presentation is marred by the misuse
of the opponent’s quotation.
ACCURACY RATING DISCUSSION
A 5.0 Accuracy rating is described by the
TIPA Rating System as follows: Superficially accurate
(i.e., accurate approximately 70% of the time) with one or more significant
facts intentionally misstated or erroneous; clearly not meeting any
kind of minimal standards for overall accuracy but appearing to do
so as part of an effort to mislead the observer.
The ”No Surprise” advertisement’s
rating of 5.2 was a tiny amount above that relatively
low 5.0 standard. It is one of the lowest-rated ads broadcast in the
campaign as far as accuracy is concerned.
The average rating by Democrats was 6.1 (with
ratings ranging from 3 to 10) while the average rating for Republicans
was 4.6 (with ratings ranging from 2 to 7). The gap
between how accurate Republicans and Democrats believed the advertisement
was actually covered only one and a half rating levels and, therefore,
was not quite as significant as what usually would be expected – i.e.,
a much more highly differentiated view of the panelists.
The independent or unaffiliated members
of the Advisory Panel rated the advertisement’s accuracy at an
average of 4.6 – identical to the rating given
by Republican members of the Panel. In fact, as this Report
illustrates, the ratings for Accuracy, Fairness, and Relevance made
by Republican members of the Advisory Panel and by independent or unaffiliated
members of the Advisory Panel, each as a group, are almost identical.
One panelist argued, “The ‘common
man’ quote is strictly accurate, but it is out of context,
since Coors went on to define what he thought a common man was.”
Another Panelist echoed the sentiments
of the independent members when she wrote, “The whole
ad is based on an out-of-context Coors comment. He wasn't saying he
doesn't know what a common man is; he was saying he doesn't know how
it ought to be defined when loosely used.”
ACCURACY RATING CONCLUSION. The “No
Surprise” advertisement begins with a misrepresentation
intentionally meant to mislead voters but then goes on to make a
series of what could be described – in comparison -- as accurate
statements (although there is a dispute between the campaigns regarding
that accuracy).
FAIRNESS RATING DISCUSSION
A 4.5 Fairness rating lies directly between
a 4.0 rating -- described as follows: Scurrilous personal
attack intentionally distorting the truth to give a false impression
of an opponent, yet mixed with enough relevant or reasonable claims
to soften what otherwise would be a brutal attack – and
a 5.0 rating – described as follows: Contains an
unfounded or unjustified personal attack on a candidate which is patently
unfair and which is not fair game.
This advertisement received a relatively
low Fairness rating compared to many of the others in the campaign.
The Republican and the independent or unaffiliated panelists were uniformly
unimpressed with the ad from a fairness perspective Even the Democrats
were unenthusiastic and recognized the fatal flaw in the ad. One panelist
(who is a Democrat) extensively commented as follows.
Lots of misrepresentations… Likely
taking quote "I don't know what the common man is" way,
way out of context. The Coors’ video is grainy, small,
and colorless. This makes the viewer feel emotionally removed
and disconnected from Coors. The Coors video is put on a gray
background to add to that disconnected feeling. "Pete Coors
has a problem" is not a statement of fact, but an unsupported
allegation. The ad leads the viewer to associate (but does not
outright state) a causal effect between Coors’ stance on
drugs from Canada and his taking campaign contributions from
drug companies. The two many not have anything to do with each
other. Moreover, it is likely that Salazar has taken similar
contributions from health care providers. I could not find reference
on the Web to either article they use as evidence in the ad ,
so I can't back up the claims. The audience is also lead to believe
that the reference to the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain
News are news articles, while instead they could just be letters
to the editor or editorials. The Salazar video was shot in film,
not video. This gives it extra warmth and color. He appears full
screen while Coors is in a small box. Salazar’s section
gives glittering generalities and platitudes that are not substantiated
either.
These comments are quite insightful although
the reality was the Salazar campaign only had low-end video footage
of the Coors statement and, therefore, its selection may not have been
as intentional as the Panel member thought. Nevertheless, the contrasts
the panelist mentions are accurate and the primary points should be
well-taken.
The average rating by Democrats was 5.0 (with
ratings ranging from 3 to 10) while the average for Republicans was 4.3 (with
ratings ranging from 1 to 7). Independent or unaffiliated Advisory
Panel members came in at 4.2 – once again almost
exactly the same as their Republican counterparts. In all cases, it
obviously was the general consensus the advertisement did not achieve
high standards for fairness.
Another Republican panelist explained his
concerns about the basic arguments made in the advertisement and their
relation to the fairness of the advertisement, as follows.
While it is probably true
that Pete cannot identify with a "common man," I would
also be leery of opening our borders to foreign drug sales because
of some legitimate concerns over safety. This is an issue that
needs to be looked at, but I think the ad is trying to indict
Pete a bit early in the process. I'm not sure how many middle
class Americans are buying foreign drugs (or trying to. I think
it tends to slant the problem to the wrong group. Relevance:
Drug costs are a growing concern amongst our seniors, but I would
guess it is not on the radar screen of the majority of citizens.
Clearly the use of the “common man” quote
was most disturbing. As one Republican panelist explained, “This
ad takes a short quote from an opponent, obviously edits it short,
totally out of context. Disgusting is the best word I can come up with.”
A Democratic member of the panel came to
a similar conclusion. “The statement that Coors doesn't
know what a ‘common man’ is was taken out of context and
is intentionally misleading. The statement that he doesn't know the
middle class is suffering is supposition and only serves to make the
omission and even greater offense.”
A response from one of the unaffiliated
panelist was thoughtful on the subject of fairness and relevance and
explained how inaccuracy affected both. “An ad focusing
on Coors' disconnect from middle class families could be a fair shot.
But building a spot around a quote taken completely out of context
does not pass the fairness or reasonableness or credibility test.”
FAIRNESS RATING CONCLUSION. “No
Surprise” is not a fair advertisement because its primary
premise is based on a quotation taken completely out-of-context.
The Salazar campaign knew this. The truth Is they could not resist
the temptation to use the quote. The campaign should have exercised
some restraint and not cast the quote in the manner it was used.
RELEVANCE RATING DISCUSSION
A 6.2 Relevance rating
is indicative that the general opinion was the advertisement was somewhat
relevant to the U.S. Senate campaign. A 6.0 Relevance rating is described
by the TIPA Rating System as follows: More relevant than
not (i.e., +65%) but containing a confusing mix of topics, subjects,
and themes (in terms of their relevance) -- some of which apply to
the contest at hand and others which simply do not apply at all (hence
the confusion).
One Republican Advisory Panel member was
philosophical.” I've seen much worse. My major reaction
is that it's kind of a cheap shot on Pete, borderline 5/6 on fairness.
I chose 6 because, I repeat, I've seen much worse.”
A different Republican member of the Advisory
Panel simply concluded the advertisement was, “inaccurate
and emotional.”
Another panelist rated the relevance as
the group’s average and noted, “Even the League
of Women Voters -- who aren't exactly impartial -- points out (in the
newspaper) that the ‘I don't know what a common man is...’ is
taken way out of context. “ These distinctions
impaired the advertisement’s overall relevance, especially given
that other segments of the ad likely were rated much higher but impacted
in the aggregate.
The average rating by Democrats was 7.6 (with
ratings ranging from 5 to 8) while the average for Republicans was 5.3 (with
ratings ranging from 4 to 7). The independent and unaffiliated members
of the Advisory Panel rated the advertisement’s Relevance at 5.5 – once
again in lockstep with their Republican colleagues (with a
very wide ratings range of 3 to 9). In general, it was felt
a significant degree of relevance was somewhat lacking to a significant
degree in this advertisement.
The Relevance rating was relatively low
when compared to other advertisements but was by far the highest rating
of the three – Accuracy (5.2), Fairness (4.5), and Relevance
(6.2). The TIPA believes this is due to the issues addressed
in the advertisement rather than how the ad actually deals with those
issues.
One Republican gave the following explanation
of his rating as follows. “It's true Coors has received
support from drug and insurance companies. It's true Coors opposes
drug re-importation. It's not clear in the ad though that Salazar does.
Cracking down on drug companies for price-fixing doesn't allow anyone
to re-import drugs from Canada -- faulty logic on that point.” This
panelist believed the faulty logic impaired any argument the advertisement,
itself, was very relevant.
RELEVANCE RATING CONCLUSION. The advertisement
attempts to tackle a number of issues – ranging from Pete Coors’ capacity
for understanding the problems of people less well-positioned than
himself to the financial struggles of middle-class families to pharmaceutical
drug import issues to which special interests support him to Salazar’s
record in office (i.e., being independent, cracking down on price-fixing
by drug companies, and contrasting the fact Salazar has experience
in elected office and Coors does not). Almost all of these issues,
if separated from the misuse of the “common man” quotation,
likely would be considered quite relevant but suffered as a result
of the misleading use of the inappropriately-truncated “common
man” statement.
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.
“No Surprise” receives
an Overall Rating of 5.2. This is a low rating on a 1to
10 scale. Given the gross misuse of the Coors’ “common
man” quotation, the Salazar campaign should either pull the
plug on this advertisement or, at the minimum, edit out the inappropriate
misuse of the subject quotation. Given the intentional and repeated
misuse of the Coors quote, it’s “no surprise” that “No
Surprise” should get canned.
(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.
