TIPA - Truth In Political Advertising

ACCURACY = 6.1 out of 10.0. This advertisement was rated nominally accurate. Salazar, as he had done in previous attack ads, points out questionable claims made by Pete Coors. But he takes them out of context, thus skewing their meaning.

FAIRNESS = 5.0 out of 10.0. This ad received a low mark for fairness. Coors’ position on the issues is exaggerated to portray him as an extremist.

RELEVANCE = 6.1 out of 10.0. This ad is nominally relevant to the real concerns of voters in this election. The death penalty is indeed an issue of importance to policy debate. However, relating capital punishment to the fate of Osama Bin Laden is a stretch.

OVERALL = 5.6 out of 10.0. This ad received a relatively low overall score. The message is lacking in substance and insight. In general, the ad is reflective of monotonous political rhetoric that is used and abused by both parties in the race for the Senate.

“Osama bin Laden. Should he face the death penalty for murdering 3,000 Americans? Pete Coors says ‘No’.”

This is the opening statement of “Unbelievable”, an attack ad released by the Salazar campaign. Salazar then claims to be committed to fighting terrorism “at home”, funding police departments in preparation for local terrorist attacks.

This advertisement is nothing more than the usual political rhetoric, taking Pete Coors’ statements and positions out of context to make him look bad while simultaneously making Salazar look good.

A Democratic panelist described the ad, “Cheap shot appeal to base instincts. What does the death penalty possibility for Osama Bin Laden have to do with anything at issue in this race? Very disappointed in Ken for this one. Even the positive second half is just a litany of feel good statements without any insight or substance.”

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 “Unbelievable”.

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. “Unbelievable” received an Accuracy rating of 6.1. The ad highlights that Coors is morally against the death penalty, and therefore against the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden, a claim that, while factually accurate, is intentionally stretched to frame Coors as an extremist.

One Advisory Panel member commented,“ Trying to link Coors' death penalty views with Bin Laden is an egregious reach. This ad is nothing more than a smear piece.”

Addressing the issue of the ad’s accuracy, another panelist expressed, “ Osama photo is certainly inflammatory, but the fundamental premise is true: If you are genuinely morally opposed to the death penalty, you can't make exceptions. The ‘ Iraq qualifications’ quote was taken somewhat out of context, but it still has bearing... in fact neither candidate has a strong background in international or military affairs. ”

Overall, the Independents scored this ad highest in Accuracy (7.8), while Republicans and Democrats seemed to agree that this ad was merely average in its accurate reporting at (5.2), and (5.8), respectively.

FAIRNESS RATING. Salazar’s attack on Coors was overstated, and therefore received a relatively low score for Fairness – 5.7 out of 10. One interesting aspect of this ad is that both candidates lack any substantial background on issues of international terrorism, so neither campaign has much room to criticize the other’s experience. That fact, of course, has not kept either side from doing it.

One Advisory Panel member duly noted, “I don't follow how being a state Attorney General qualifies one to be an expert on terrorism, which this ad seems to imply. So far as I know our state has no plans for large scale decontamination of potentially infected sites or waters or equipment.”

Another panelist expressed similar feelings, “This ad is really just a lot of tough guy fluff. In reality, Ken Salazar has done little to prepare us for a terrorist attack. Furthermore, I'm sure Pete Coors would also say he supports the troops. And finally, although Salazar has worked to keep us safe from crime, the ad suggests that he knows how to keep us safe from terrorists. That's a bit of a stretch.”

Fairness ratings remained somewhat consistent between all three parties. The Democrats gave the rating a score of 5.5, with Independents not falling far behind (5.3) and Republicans not far below that (4.3).

RELEVANCE RATING. Although the death penalty and terrorism are important issues, this ad received a fairly low Relevance score of 6.1 because of its misleading content.

One panelist addressed the relevance of the ad, stating, “ The ad is very relevant because the war on terror is top of the mind for all of us and we want to know how our elected representatives feel. But we need to know the truth, not a distorted view for pure political gain.”

Another Panel member opined, “Although I favor the death penalty, those who are against it, including Coors, make thoughtful arguments for their stand. It is not unfair to criticize Coors' stand, but the commercial takes it at least a bit out of context.”

The range of opinion about the Relevance of the advertisement was more varied than the scores for Fairness. Republicans (5.0) and Democrats (5.8), both thought the ad was nominally relevant. The Independents, however, thought the ad was significantly relevant and gave it a much higher rating (8.3).

OVERALL RATING. “Unbelievable” was another run of the mill attack ad that received a poor overall rating of 5.2. Issues of importance were brought to attention, but they were illustrated in a skewed and misleading way. The public, when watching this ad, does not get a fair or accurate depiction of Coors’ position on the issues or Salazar’s merits as a candidate.

A Panel member summed this up by saying, “I think this is being taken out of context and painting Pete as someone that almost condones the terrorist actions, which we know isn't true.”

Commenting on the validity of the attack, one Panel member said, “Coors' failure to come up with a good answer about fighting the war is perfectly relevant, reflecting his inexperience with the issues he'd face in the Senate...even after months as a candidate.”

(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.