Screenshot sourced from Twitter
Anyone who has worked at the intersection of campaign research and communications knows the challenge: You have a compelling finding, a stack of supporting documents, and approximately three seconds to make the relevant point legible to someone who is watching television—while also probably doing something else.
The researcher wants precision; the media vendor wants impact. These objectives are not inherently at odds, but reconciling them requires judgment—and an understanding that the visual is part of the claim.
An attack ad from Republican Rep. Scott Perry’s campaign against Democratic challenger Janelle Stelson illustrates what happens when that process goes wrong.
On screen, viewers see what appears to be a legal document titled “AFFIDAVIT” while a female voiceover narrates, “Police have been called to investigate Stelson for exposing herself totally naked to a neighborhood child.”
Stelson’s campaign denies the allegation, and the article notes that no charges were filed against her. Importantly, WITF found that this is not an official legal document but merely a notarized statement from a Perry supporter.
That distinction matters. A lot.
Documents are compelling television visuals because they carry an implicit promise: We have the receipts. A page of text, an official-looking heading, a strategically highlighted passage together communicate that what the viewer is seeing is substantiated beyond an opponent’s accusation.
A supporter’s statement is evidence of just that: someone making a statement that may or may not be true. A police report can document a dispute or allegation without confirming it. And a judicial finding is something else entirely.
These distinctions may be inconvenient for a 30-second spot, but they do not become optional just because the media market is saturated or the buy is expensive. Misrepresenting the underlying record exploits the very reason campaigns use documents in the first place. It can also create a more serious legal problem.
Public figures must overcome a high bar in defamation cases. They generally must establish that an allegedly factual assertion was materially false and published with “actual malice”—knowledge of falsity or reckless regard thereof.
Manufacturing misleading images does not automatically establish every element of defamation, but it is a much harder position to explain in court than an inadvertent editing error.
Good research makes persuasive communication possible. It also tells you when the evidence cannot carry the message you want.
For researchers, the practical lesson is that our work cannot end with approving the script’s citations. We need to see the finished product. A properly sourced sentence can become misleading when paired with a visual that suggests something the source never established.
For communications teams, remember that you and the research team share the same goal: The strongest possible message that the underlying evidence can actually support. Make your strategic goals clear, don’t be afraid to ask questions, and work with us to make compelling messages that keep everyone out of the courtroom.