Two media outlets have published flawed analyses of a campaign ad by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter, which suggests Republican candidate Bob Beauprez should be held “accountable” for ads attacking Ritter's record as Denver district attorney. In contrast, a September 26 KUSA 9News "Truth Test" of the Ritter ad did not reach the apparently baseless conclusion of KCNC CBS4: that the Ritter campaign's allegations that Beauprez was behind the TV ads were “false.” Instead, 9News reporter Adam Schrager accurately reported that the accusation “has not been proven.”

As Colorado Media Matters noted, in a September 22 CBS4 "Reality Check" of the Ritter ad, reporter Raj Chohan labeled portions of the ad “false” without noting the substance of the Ritter campaign's allegations. A September 26 Denver Post “Ad Watch” analysis responded to the Ritter ad in a similar manner.

Ritter's ad, which according to Chohan implies a connection between Beauprez and the ads sponsored by the Republican-backed Trailhead Group, was a response to repeated attacks on Ritter's performance as Denver district attorney by the Beauprez campaign and Trailhead. Ritter's ad asks viewers, “So who should be held accountable for these negative attacks on Bill Ritter?” before showing a clip from a Beauprez campaign ad in which he says, “I'm Bob Beauprez, and I want you to hold me accountable.”

During his “Reality Check” segment from the September 22 broadcast of CBS4 News at 10 p.m., Chohan stated, "[I]f the ad is claiming Bob Beauprez was behind the TV ads attacking Ritter, the claim is false." As evidence for his conclusion, Chohan stated: “Federal law bars Trailhead from coordinating with the Beauprez camp, and while the Ritter campaign alleges this has happened, there's no direct evidence I've seen to prove it, and Beauprez adamantly denies it.” Chohan did not explain why this statement justifies his conclusion that the Ritter campaign's allegations are “false.”

Similarly, the September 26 Denver Post “Ad Watch” analysis of Ritter's ad uncritically stated that because “Beauprez is not allowed to communicate with the Trailhead Group” by law, he “is not accountable” for Trailhead's statements in its ads attacking Ritter.

Neither Chohan nor the Post's “Ad Watch” explained the substance of the Ritter campaign's allegations, and neither provided any evidence that the allegation is false beyond citing election laws and the Beauprez campaign's denial.

In contrast, the 9News “Truth Test” of Ritter's ad did not reach the apparently baseless conclusion presented by Chohan or the Post. Instead of dismissing Ritter's allegations as “false,” Schrager stated during his September 26 “Truth Test” that Ritter's “accusation [against Beauprez] has not been proven.” On the 9News website, Schrager also provided more background concerning Ritter's allegations than either Chohan or the Post's “Ad Watch.”

According to Schrager's online analysis of Ritter's ad:

To allege Beauprez is somehow responsible for what the Trailhead Group is doing is to allege he's broken the law and that has not been proven. Ritter's campaign says Beauprez had announced he was going to unearth Ritter's cold case files one day, but pulled back citing “new information.” One day later, an off-shoot of Trailhead called Coloradans for Justice released an ad attacking Ritter for a plea bargain he made in 2000. (Source: Evan Dreyer, Ritter Campaign Spokesman e-mail, 9/25/06). Beauprez's campaign has sent out numerous press releases attacking Ritter for being soft on criminals, but denies any connection to Trailhead. (Source: Beauprez Campaign Website)

In his analysis, Schrager also noted, “However, alleging conspiracy is not the same as proving conspiracy.”

From the September 26 broadcast of KUSA's 9News at 5 p.m.:

SCHRAGER: This is an accusation that has not been proven. Two of the newspapers referred to attacks made by the Trailhead Group, which represents prominent Republicans in Colorado. The third newspaper referred to an attack made by Beauprez himself. Now, the difference is important, because any coordination between Beauprez and a group like Trailhead would be illegal. Alleging conspiracy is not the same as proving conspiracy.