NY Post falsely claimed that ad analysis findings “clashed with recent media coverage accusing McCain of distorting Obama's record in ads”

Written by Eric Hananoki

Published

The New York Post falsely claimed that the results of a Wisconsin Advertising Project analysis stating that in a recent week Sen. Barack Obama ran more negative ads than Sen. John McCain “clash with recent media coverage accusing McCain of distorting Obama's record in ads.” In fact, the analysis reportedly “do[es]n't measure the veracity of the ads”; rather, in the words of the San Francisco Chronicle's Joe Garofoli, it “define[s] 'negative' as any time you mention the opponent's name.” Thus, the analysis did not “clash” with recent media reports noting that McCain's ads distorted Obama's record because it reportedly did not analyze whether the ads contained distortions.

In a September 18 article, the New York Post falsely claimed that the results of a September 17 Wisconsin Advertising Project analysis -- which stated that in “the first week of advertising after the conventions ... 56 percent of the [Sen. John] McCain campaign ads were negative, while 77 percent of [Sen Barack] Obama's ads were negative” -- “clash with recent media coverage accusing McCain of distorting Obama's record in ads.” In fact, the analysis reportedly “do[es]n't measure the veracity of the ads,” in the words of San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Joe Garofoli. Rather it “define[s] 'negative' as any time you mention the opponent's name.” In other words, the analysis did not “clash” with recent media reports noting that McCain's ads have contained falsehoods and distorted Obama's record, because it reportedly did not analyze whether the ads contained falsehoods or distortions.

In a September 17 post on his San Francisco Chronicle blog, Garofoli wrote of the analysis:

The WAP says “56 percent of the McCain campaign ads were negative, while 77 percent of Obama's ads were negative” between Sept. 6-13.

Here's the fine print: The WAPpers define “negative” as any time you mention the opponent's name. So if Team O ran an ad that said “My economic plan is better than John McCain's” -- ding! ding! ding! -- that rings negative bells in the WAP's ears. And they don't measure the veracity of the ads or whether something was a personal attack or a policy attack.

WAP deputy director Sarah Niebler told us why: “It's more objective than having our coders determine what is a personal negative attack and what is a policy negative attack.”

Indeed, the Wisconsin Advertising Project, in a September 17 press release about the study, gave no indication that it attempted to assess the accuracy of the ads. Of its negative ad count, the Project wrote:

In line with the expectations of most observers, the campaign has turned more negative since the conclusion of the Republican Convention. In the first week of advertising after the conventions, Obama aired a higher percentage of negative ads than did McCain. 56 percent of the McCain campaign ads were negative, while 77 percent of Obama's ads were negative.

The September 18 New York Post article by Carl Campanile in its entirety:

Barack Obama has aired substantially more negative TV ads than John McCain following the political conventions, a study released yesterday found.

The University of Wisconsin analysis showed that 77 percent of Obama's ads that ran from Sept. 6-13 were negative -- nearly all of the critical spots portraying McCain as a clone of President Bush.

By comparison, 56 percent of McCain's ads were considered negative for attacking Obama.

The most frequently aired Obama ad is called “Same” -- a 30-second spot that shows five different shots of McCain with Bush. McCain's most frequently shown ad is “Original Mavericks,” portraying the GOP candidate and running mate Sarah Palin as the real reformers. It does not attack Obama.

The results clash with recent media coverage accusing McCain of distorting Obama's record in ads.

Both candidates spent a combined $15 million in ads last week.