Responding by email to a Colorado Media Matters reader, KUSA reporter Adam Schrager defended his claim -- made during an October 13 9News “Truth Test” -- that a campaign ad critical of U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's (R-Fort Morgan) environmental record in Congress was “false.” Schrager provided Colorado Media Matters with a copy of his response and permission to publish it.

Colorado Media Matters noted on October 16 that Schrager's October 13 “Truth Test” analysis of the anti-Musgrave ad incorrectly labeled as “false” a claim that Musgrave “voted to cut programs that protect our drinking water.” As evidence, Schrager cited Musgrave's voting record, as documented by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), for the 109th Congress (2005-2006) only. However, Schrager did not note that, according to the LCV, Musgrave voted during the 108th Congress (2003-2004) in favor of “a special exemption from Clean Water Act requirements” for oil and gas companies.

In his October 17 email response, Schrager wrote, “I don't understand how an exemption for oil and gas companies equates to a vote to cut programs that protect our drinking water. You may argue the end result is the same, but my job is not to make that argument, but to analyze the language in the commercials.” Schrager also stated, "[T]he only thing Colorado Media Matters proved 'false' is that political consultants who produce inaccurate ads tend to be excused for their behavior if they share the same political leanings of those looking to criticize."

From Schrager's October 17 email response to a Colorado Media Matters reader, posted with Schrager's permission:

Hello there [reader],

Thanks for your note. I have copied the head of Colorado Media Matters on this response, so he can post this as well.

Let's look at what the ad says very closely as that's what we're supposed to do in journalism. The exact line in the Coloradans For Life commercial says, “Musgrave voted to cut programs that protect our drinking water.” We were well aware of the Congresswoman's other votes, specifically the one that environmentalists did not like back in the 108th Congress that, using Media Matters language, provided “a special exemption from Clean Water Act requirements for oil and gas companies.” I spoke with many people in Colorado's environmental community when that measure was being debated in Congress.

However, I don't understand how an exemption for oil and gas companies equates to a vote to cut programs that protect our drinking water. You may argue the end result is the same, but my job is not to make that argument, but to analyze the language in the commercials. The commercial does not speak to the end result, but the actual activity of cutting programs. I believe it's quite the logistical leap from an exemption for companies to cutting programs.

You may believe it's a distinction without a difference, but we didn't pick the words used in the commercial. They were selected carefully and our analysis proved more careful.

Affix your indignation for this on the folks who made the commercial. It was sloppy and the way it was worded, it was factually incorrect. I would think Colorado Media Matters and its readers would be better served directing their attention to the company which produced this commercial for doing a disservice to its cause.

With all due respect [reader], the only thing Colorado Media Matters proved “false” is that political consultants who produce inaccurate ads tend to be excused for their behavior if they share the same political leanings of those looking to criticize.

Thanks for your note.

Adam