tv Presidential Campaign Commercials CSPAN October 11, 2020 6:30pm-8:02pm EDT
get the power back to the people. announcer: follow us for more of this day in history clips and posts. host: the first presidential tv presidential campaign ads aired during the 1952 campaign. we looked at the history of these ads, beginning with the 1950 two election and into the 21st century. joined us to take viewer questions and tweets. he is the author of several works. "daisy petals and mushroom clouds: lbj on the ads that changed politics." [video clip] >> ike for president. ? you like like, i like ike. we don't want john, or dean or harry.
get in step with ike you like ike, i like ike, everybody likes ike for president we will take it to washington with ike you like ike, i like ike, everybody likes ike for president with delay, go the other way. we all go with ike ? we will bring ike to washington ? >> now is the time for all americans to come to the aid of their country. >> ? ike for president, ike for president. ♪ ♪ >> ike. >> bob.
>> ike. >> bob. >> i am so glad we are friends again. >> we agree on everything. >> let's never separate again, bob. >> never again, ike. >> bob. >> ike. >> bob. >> ike. >> will ike and bob live happily ever after? is the white house big enough for both of them? stay tuned for a musical interlude. ? >> ♪ i've been thinking, bob and ike think alike, with a general in the white house, who will give the orders? bob or ike? john ♪ote for adlai and ♪ host: it is a joint production of american history tv on c-span 3 and c-span's "washington
journal." we are pleased to be joined by robert mann, author of "daisy petals and mushroom clouds." take a look at the history of tv political ads. professor mann: thank you. good to be here. host: we start with 1952, the first year television was used as a medium for political ads. guest: television had been used a little bit in 1948 to broadcast the democratic convention. harry truman made a speech from new jersey at the latter part of the race in 1948. it was aired on regional television linkup along the east coast. but, really, 1952 was the first time you saw candidates advertising in a way that was not just a speech. even though we are going to see a lot of spots this morning, 60-second spots, 1952,
1956, 1960, the candidates saw television as a way to give speeches. 1952, adlai stevenson and dwight eisenhower were airing some spot advertising. the vast majority of people who were seeing them, at least certainly with stevenson, were seeing them give 30-minute speeches. stevenson gave 18-, 30-minute speeches on 10:30 at night on tuesdays and thursdays. both candidates were very reluctant to do this kind of advertising. they saw politics as being more dignified. they saw spots as the way you sell soup, soap, and cereal, not lofty political ideas. host: we are going to see a lot in thes, a lot of ads, next hour and a half year with bob mann from lsu. we welcome your calls, comments and questions.
we open up our lines. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002. so it is fair to say both 1952, ike in eisenhower and adlai stevenson had to be pushed to do advertising, correct? guest: yeah. there was an advertising executive who was fairly prominent, famous for his innovations at the time, rosser reeves. he was hired by the eisenhower campaign to manage their advertisements. at the time, eisenhower and his people thought it would be just speeches. reeves looks at one of eisenhower's speeches, i think his announcement speech early in the campaign and came to two major conclusions. eisenhower was a terrible speaker into
these speeches were too complex and too long. people left the speech without having a single idea of what it was about. he persuaded eisenhower to do this spot advertising. the major way that people were notng eisenhower spots was this animated jingle you saw, which is interesting. a lot of people enjoy watching it because it is recognizes -- most eisenhower spots were these 20-second eisenhower answers america where eisenhower just looks and the cameron answers questions from people off the street. eisenhower thought it was humiliating. stevenson thought his thoughts where a humiliating exercise that degraded the candidacy and the office of the president. host: two quick questions about what we saw about eisenhower and stevenson. one, donkeys in that ad for
then-candidate eisenhower, kind of a negative ad in that regard, and, two, who is bob in the adlai stevenson? guest: ok, so the donkeys you see going backwards, which as you point out is a subtle negative -- that is john's markman. democratic senator from alabama who was adlai stevenson's running mate. dean atchinson, secretary of state under truman who was reviled by conservatives and republicans. in the other outcome of the bob and ike, the bob was robert taft. mr. conservative. leader of the conservative republicans. senator from ohio. son of president taft. eisenhower ran against taft. taft was his main opponent for
the nomination in 1952, and to win taft's support, he promised he would support his conservative agenda and even give him some patronage. democrats called that the great surrender, eisenhower had surrendered to taft, and now, taft was controlling the nominee. the point is that they had fallen in love and taft has captured eisenhower. he is going to be the power behind the throne if eisenhower is elected president. host: the title of your book, "daisy petals and mushroom clouds." based on the daisy ads. let's go to that ad. the 1964 ad from the lyndon johnson campaign, and we will follow that with ads from the goldwater campaign. here is a look. [video clip] >> [indiscernible] 9, 9 -- 7, 6, 8,
>> 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 , 0. [explosion] >> these are the stakes. to make a world in which all of god's children can live, or go into the dark. we must either love each other, or we must die. announcer: vote for president johnson on november 3. the stakes are too high for you to stay home. ? >> graft. ♪ swindles. ♪
juvenile delinquency. ♪ crime. ♪ riots. announcer: hear what barry goldwater has to say about our lack of moral leadership. >> the leadership of this nation has a clear and immediate challenge to go to work effectively and go to work immediately to restore proper respect for law and order in this land, not just prior to election day either. america's greatness is the greatness of her people. and let this generation then make a new mark for that greatness. let this generation of americans set a standard of responsibility that will inspire the world. announcer: in your heart, you know he is right. vote for barry goldwater. host: there is a lot there. bob mann. start with the daisy add and tell us the tenor of the times.
1964, and why that came about. guest: thank you for asking me to set the stage. i think it is important to understand the atmosphere. we are still in the shadow of the cuban missile crisis. we are still armored to the teeth facing the soviet union, which is also armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. people at that time are fearful that the soviet union and the united states, even though the cuban missile crisis had been resolved, we would still end up going to war with them, and it would not be a conventional land war. it would be a nuclear war that would destroy the world. in that environment comes along goldwater, who has been a prominent leader of the conservative wing of the republican since the 1950's. a republican senator from arizona who is speaking with -- using a lot of bellicose language. when kennedy announces the moonshot, goldwater tells "i am not interested
in sending a man to the moon. i want to launch a missile to the kremlin." he calls the nuclear bomb just another weapon. he goes on television then suggests we should defoliate the ho chi minh trail in vietnam using nuclear weapons. he made a lot of comments like that over the years that suggested that he was kind of reckless and not serious about the responsibility of being president when it came to using nuclear weapons. so people already knew goldwater's position on that really well. that spot takes advantage. it is clever, it never mentions goldwater because it did not need to. the people who created that spot realized all they had to do was give sort of a story and let the viewers do the work, let the viewers fill in the blanks with the knowledge and emotions. that is what makes it groundbreaking my clever. so cleverndbreaking,
and effective. it put the viewers to work. did not give them a lot of information. it assumed they had a lot of information and used that in a very creative, clever way. host: is it correct the daisy ad only ran once? guest: only ran once as a paid ad on september 7, 1964. probably, in those days, there were only three networks, so probably around 40 million, 50 million people saw that. it was not unusual to run that in then move onto something else. host: i thought -- go ahead. guest: it was not unusual to move on to something else. the spot did air on several network news broadcasts in its entirety later that week. it started making news. goldwater people and people in the republican party, officials, started to object. it made news, which ensured got a free ride. i am guessing between 70 million and 100 million people saw it by the end of the week. host: we always associated
richard nixon with the law and order, but it was barry goldwater's message. guest: yes, that spot that you saw there is a distillation of a 30-minute documentary the goldwater campaign had created called "choice." they planned it as a paid political program on national television. goldwater saw it and decided -- he said it was a racist spot. run byped it from being the goldwater campaign on national television. it did get run on regional television, a lot of house parties. but they did take the essence of it down to this 30-second spot that took advantage of anxiety over civil unrest. lyndon johnson, who had become president after the death of john f. kennedy, was seen by a lot of republicans as having added and
caused a lot of the moral degradation of the country. the civil rights movement, and there were not a lot of protests over the vietnam war at the time. but all of this unrest and this unsettled environment was growing, and conservatives were scared, and goldwater and his campaign were trying to take advantage of that fear and growing unease with a certain percentage of the population. host: we are looking at the history of presidential campaign tv advertising here on american history tv on c-span3. a joint production with "washington journal." we are welcoming your phone calls. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. but, robert mann, a comment from twitter says, "tv in its infancy are more reflect of the ads shown during theater intermissions.
plus, american culture was much more conservative than." his observation. guest: from 1952 through 1964, infancy is the right word to use. the people doing this stuff, the politicians, were really experimenting. they did not really know what they were doing. today, you would hire a firm, that specializes only one in producing political spots that relied on gobs of public opinion research. they just didn't know anything about that. these were mostly technicians producing these. these are people who arranged the presentation of a 30-minute speech, or a four- to five-minute distillation. it was not until burnback,
the madison avenue firm who got the account to do lyndon johnson's campaign, that true advertising principles were brought to presidential campaigns. oh, this is how you do it. the reason i wrote my book is because this is the hinge moment in american political advertising when everybody thought this is how it is done. this is how you advertise political ideas. this is how you create spots that are interesting, clever, that put the viewer's information to work. not just a passive experience. if you look at the spots before 1964, 1968 and forward, you can see there is a moment in time when everything changes. host: let's get to all callers. we go first to brent in jacksonville, florida. you are on with professor mann. caller: good morning. how are you doing? guest: good, thank you. caller: i had a question about the modern-day presidential commercials.
it just seems to me biden said he ran for president because of the "fine people" comments by president trump. and he seems to cut of, right up to that line, where he did not condemn white supremacists, -- but that is always left out. you know what i am saying? host: ok. professor mann, what are some of your observations of modern-day, 2020, ads compared to what we are seeing here in 1952? 1964? guest: it is a torrent of ads. they are targeted. in 1964, the daisy ad, the meantter ad we saw, was
to be seen by -- aired mostly on national television. even then there were certainly sings -- swing states. they were just broadcasts. they were meant for almost everyone to see them. so they were not targeted. today, what you see is a much finely sliced- and diced electorate based on profiling and political polling that these candidates do. if you see an ad, especially online, that is usually an ad that was intended exactly for you or a person just like you. it may not even be meant for your neighbor, maybe not your spouse. it was meant for you personally because either of your shopping behavior or your buying behavior or registration, where you live. these are much more finally targeted to people -- it does not mean they always hit the mark, but that is the main -- other than stylistic differences , that is the main difference in
advertising today before the invention of the internet. host: john, in mechanicsburg, pennsylvania. caller: thanks for taking my call. just curious. looking at history, 1961, president kennedy did a speech at the waldorf-astoria. during that same era, you had the edward r. murrow folks talking about the media and its value to society. both speeches, both of those folks, talked about how the media was not used properly to educate the american people about the issues of the day. i am curious about the speaker's thoughts. you have done a lot of research on these political ads. right?nnedy and merle they said we are not using television to educate? just to amuse? even in the realm of political ads, it seems that is where we have gotten to. as opposed to providing useful, helpful education to the american people.
just curious what the guest thinks. host: thanks, john. guest: that is a really good question. i would not say they were right, but they were prescient. i would say in the early to mid 1960's -- there was an advantage and a disadvantage. you may not have had access to different sources of news. there were three networks. you maybe had a couple of local newspapers. some radio news. there were generally agreed upon facts that every american understood. if something happened, every american sort of had the same basic understanding of that. you may think that it is good or bad, but it is the way it was. where we are now, i do not have to belabor this point, but we are a totally fragmented society depending on your political views or your lifestyle. you're getting your news in one way from your neighbor who is
getting his or her news in another way. there is no commonly widely agreed-upon fact about anything. we are working our silos. we don't talk to each other. we are not hearing the same thing. we are not talking about the same thing. personally, i am not sure that is a good thing. but it is what it is. and i think kennedy and those were probably prescient. maybe they saw what was coming come over maybe they were criticizing something that they -- they certainly did not anticipate the internet, but here we are. host: let's go to north chicago, illinois. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and mr. mann. this question has to do with the rules and ethics of political campaigns, presidential campaign. historically and up until especially present day, is there a commission or a set of rules
that campaigns must follow to make sure campaign ads are done properly outside of slander? guest: excellent question. in the 1960's, there was a federal commission, the fair election practices commission, i may be botching the name a little bit there, but there was a nonpartisan commission that did not have a whole lot of teeth, but it could make some judgments and pronouncements and declare that a spot was unfair or embarrassed a candidate to removing an ad or changing an ad. rulesrt of the prevailing since the advent of television have been the federal elections and the principle enshrined in our law and in our constitution that political speech is the most highly protected form of speech, so candidates have generally been
able to say whatever they want to say in their ads. stations cannot -- this goes to broadcast television -- cannot censor those. they cannot say, "you cannot say that." it is protected speech, so candidates are mostly governed by the judgments of the voters. if i say this, it is not that it is wrong or illegal, it is will the voters react horribly? will it backfire on me? and, honestly, that is the main check that candidates and the candidate committees, not third-party committees, which are under different rules, but candidates can pretty much say what they would want. host: more of your calls and texts momentarily in this joint production on the history of television campaign ads in presidential races with professor robert mann. but let's move on to two ads from the 1968 campaign.
[video clip] ? announcer: it is time for an honest look at the problem of order in the united states. the necessary ingredient of change, but in a government that provides peace through change there is no cause that justifies resort to violence. let's recognize that the first civil right of every american is to be free from domestic violence. so i pledge to you, we shall have order in the united states. [video clip ends]
[video clip plays] [laughter] [coughing] host: bob mann, on the nixon ad, the tagline was very reflective of the ad, in your mind, you know that i am right, that ended the goldwater. strong statements. guest: the goldwater statement, i tell my students that is a great example that you ought to focus group your slogan, your tagline. it did not take the johnson because campaign five minutes to
respond to it. the rejoinder, in your guts you know he's nuts. [laughter] those taglines were really big in those days. it is a reflection to the sense that republicans and conservatives felt that the world was crumbling apart. traditional conservatism. this desire for order. and law and order has been a way of expressing that for a very long time. host: one observation on that tagline on twitter, cynthia says "1964's in your heart you know he's right" becomes "suburbs under threat 2020." on to the laughing man ad. spiro t agnew. ad at did people get that the time? guest: yes and no. it is in the same spirit of the daisy girl added that it is using knowledge and information, emotions that voters -- or is trying to -- that voters already have. they are expected to do some of the work. the agnew of october
1968 in the voter's mind was certainly not the agnew of 1974. there were questions about agnew's behavior, ethics, his morality at the time. agnew was already making statements that were mildly embarrassing to the republicans. and so he was unknown. largely unknown person, so it was just a way of ridiculing him, calling him a lightweight or an unknown. i think that spot probably would have had much more rson -- resonance if it had run in 1972 or 1974 than 1968. host: from robert in clearwater, florida. how much did a commercial cost in the 1950's and 1960's to run? guest: excellent question. if you were going to -- it
depended what show you were running it in. a lot of it depended on your production costs. i will just give you one example that i know, the daisy girl spot. it cost around $25,000 to buy the time on nbc to run it for a minute. and it probably cost another $10,000 to $20,000 to produce. i can't remember what that would be in 2020 dollars, but it was not cheap. it is still not cheap to buy a minute of time on network television. it is very expensive. that is why you do not see a lot of network spots because they our expenses. they are not well targeted. people like going to local markets to get more efficiency for your candidates prefer going to local media markets where they can get cheaper time and more efficiency for their money. host: kathy in gainesville, new york, on the republican line.
caller: thank you for the trip down memory lane. looking back, so much has changed since the early days. the media also plays a role in it. the news was much less opinions. of course we just had newspapers , and television and radio. i love the presidential advertisements, but i do still keep in mind that they're advertisements. i was wondering, since so much has changed with social and everything, how many people do you think are really affected by these ads? are they worth the money spent on them? has that changed since the 1960's until now, or the 1950's when they started? guest: and that is the essential question of this, what difference does it make? thearted out in my book on daisy girl spot thinking it destroyed barry goldwater's candidacy. what i found is that it didn't. it had very little impact, before that spot aired,
goldwater was going to lose the race. after that spot, and very rough spots to johnson campaign aired some of the race was virtually unchanged. goldwater was cruising to lose. historic margin. i think even to davies as are not as effective or determinative as you think. 3%, 4% of the voters are undecided. the candidates are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and get a small percentage of, many of whom may not vote at all. i think they are impervious to this stuff, but candidates have been doing this for time immemorial and i think a lot of campaigns do it because they don't know what else to do.
congressional races, mayors races, i think we do make a difference. many voters do not have a lot of information about the candidates. airing less and less political news, so a lot of information that voters get is not from the media. they get it from the campaign commercials. that's a sad fact. don in oklahoma -- independent line. caller: yes, robert, i have several questions. one thing you said that biden run in the last segment about blaming trump for all of the virus gas, which he did the best he could. he did much better than biden
ever would or obama. he refers to how many empty chairs there is at the table, but i just wonder, how many of these into chairs are little high chairs that the democrats are putting at these tables. another thing about the replacement of the supreme court justice -- you go'm going to let there. we are focusing on the history of residential campaign tv ad. richland, washington, democrat'' line. morning.ood when you show that commercial it took me back to when i was seven years old and it's amazing, it's amazing. not the first part of it, of
course, but the second part and i always wondered why i was so scared of nuclear war, but the ,ther thing i want to ask you but it seems like during the whens, didn't used to be johnny carson and all the other people used to be on -- what are my china to say? -- what am i trying to say? if trump and biden were both running, did they have to have the same, exact time? one could not have more time than the other one on tv? thanks, mary. equal time is what i think she is referring to. that is why wed did not have debates for a while, the fairness doctrine. haven johnson would
insisted on every third-party candidate being on the stage. that was a big factor, having politicians on, richard nixon was going to come on you had to to the time in some fashion hubert humphrey. we'll have that anymore because he recognized news organizations can use their judgment and most people are pretty happy with giving the media organizations the ability to make that decision rather than having the federal government impose on both sides. a question on the broader issue of advertising from bob in tennessee. dr. ann point will compare the evolution of campaign ads to trends in commercial tv ads over the same time? guest: that a very interesting
question. product advertising always leads the way and i think that is because -- i have thought about its a lot, and i've decided is bars of soap cannot talk back .o the advertising executive politicians can and do and liberals and conservatives tend to be very conservative with a c when it comes to their image and the messages and tactics they are willing to use why bothads which is adlai stevenson and dwight eisenhower were very reluctant to go on tv and do spot advertising because they want to be dignified. they don't want to do something that is undignified or boomerangs on them. if you want to know where political advertising is going, sometimes -- if you see where
product advertising is today, that is where political advertising might be in five or 10 years. we are talking about presidential campaign advertisement. american history tv is on c-span3 every weekend. --e on "washington journal" a coproduction as well. 1980, jimmy carter running against ronald reagan. here is a look. [video clip] >> no matter how , the president cannot avoid making a decision. that's the only way presidential decision can be made.
president carter. and deeply, deeply resent attacksded by the present carter has made a my husband, his attempt to paint my husband is a man he is not. he is not a warmonger, he is not a man who will throw the elderly on the streets. that's a terrible thing to do and to say about anybody. that is campaigning on fear. there are many issues at stake. i would like mr. carter to explain to me why inflation is as high as it is, why unemployment is as high as it is . i would like him to explain the policyting, week foreign so our friends overseas do not know if we will stand up for them or not.
the issue of this campaign is his record. >> the time is now for strong leadership. my first impression of the jimmy carter ad is it is dark. he got a fair amount of pushback from using the oval office in a political campaign, did he not? >> absolutely. proper, and seen as president trump gets criticism for the campaign events he has held at the white house as if this is the first time it has been done. jimmy carter did it. there is another spot that showed him on air force one. he not only used the oval office in that spot, there was another spot where he was sitting at his
oval office desk. it looks like he was bowing his head. what we're seeing now is not exactly new. nancy reagan, i was very was an actress. that was her career. was she the first potential future first lady, presidential candidate spouse to appear in an ad? i'm not aware of another. lyndon johnson had an ad that had him standing next to lady retrained tobird andrews air force base after the assassination of president kennedy, but this is the first one i'm aware of that the
candidate's wife is speaking talking, not only about how wonderful her husband's, but it is an effective use of the president -- of the candidate's secular candidate which softens the blow. here is ronald reagan's campaign saying that jimmy carter is attacking us, it's unfair and she pivots to attacking jimmy carter. seenense was they could be as attacking the other. the other thing about that spot is she isfective, clearly not reading from teleprompter -- when you see the candidate clearly conversing, i think they are always more effective.
host: her message is a substantive policy criticism of vacillating foreign policy. she talks about jimmy carter, allies overseas, which as a reflection of the current tone of the 2020 .ampaign that is the thing about the spots. go look at those. at howld be gob smacked the themes are still the themes we are talking about today -- high energy prices, corruption .n government these are not old issues. peopled close, different wearing them.
we will go to the phones now. yes, i am talking about joe biden being on tv so much. i called the cable company because all i see when i sit down -- um 84 years old. tellinge is joe biden his lies. that man lies so bad and they talk about trump. his wife getting killed in baby, and he was in the hospital, and then he found out one of his sons of cancer, four years later -- host: all right, so robert, democrats line. >> good morning. i'm calling because there is one thing that we have not discussed, which is how much money is going to these networks and television stations and like
that. there's so much of this money that we are donating to the campaigns, we are donating it to the campaign and it's a little ridiculous. i feel like there must be a better way to do this with some sort of public thing and short time and things like that. that is what i have to say. host: ok, robert. guest: i could not agree more. i did this year was one my classes. four years ago i took 10 or so battleground states and looked at what the undecided was in polls and how much money the campaigns were spending in those states to try to influence that 3% or 4% that was undecided and you look at the cost per vote, how many hundreds of millions to influencent this very small slice of the
electorate. if you are undecided at this point, you are really undecided between the challenger and not voting at all. smarter toould be put that money into organizing and more direct voter contact. that's the kind of labor that takes years. most of this money is raised in the last few months of the campaign. they really needed in april and march to be doing the kind of work that you need to be doing. when you get $10 million dumped three weeks before the election, there's only a few things you can do with it and that stump it into advertising. host: i have to death of two of robert's
books and recommend him to everyone. question -- as the guest in a daisy petals commercial comparable power in this election or any other? guest: power -- i think it's solidified votes against barry goldwater, but i think the daisy powerful because it change the way that we thought about political completely, it revolutionized political .dvertising, so i would say no maybe we will see this shortly, the 1984 morning in america .pots ronald reagan ran that spot is comparable in some --s 1984, its search for that
morning in america ad. let's take a look. [video clip] morning again in america. today more men and women will go than ever before in our nation history with interest rates at half the record highs of 1980. homesamilies will buy new than in any time in the last four years. this afternoon, 6500 young men and women will be married and with inflation less than half of what it was four years ago, they can look forward with confidence to the future. it's morning again in america and under the leadership of president reagan, our country is stronger and better why would we ever -- better. why would we ever want to return to where we were four short ?ears ago
>> there is a bear in the woods. for some people, the bear is easy to see. others don't see it at all. some say the bear is tame. others say is vicious and dangerous. isce no one can be sure who right, isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear -- if there is a bear? teach your parents well them --u ever let you just look at them and sigh
and know they love you ♪ to morningoing back in america, being a fan of voices, he may have done campbell's soup and everything. he was very familiar voice -- a very clear voice of the time. it seemed to have everything you needed. yes, it really did. i think that is one of the best spots and i think you could argue -- i have not looked at the polling, but i think you could argue that that spot was spot.an effective maybe it didn't win votes, but it was made to confirm the general feeling that people in thatnited states had things were better and they were better because of reagan's policies.
certainly not everyone would have argued that was the state of the country, but it did summarize the zeitgeist and reinforce people's feelings that things are moving in the right direction and it goes to what i was saying earlier about using the madison avenue check me. they used the pepsi ad using .lmost the exact same images it was really the culmination of the marriage between washington political advertising and madison avenue. and on the mondale spot, obviously some echoes of the daisy at of 1964, but the use of that sum, it was one of these first times that a music group gave permission for a campaign to use what was a hit song of
right now it's pretty obvious that they are strongly associated with helping the democratic party. bill moyers was one of the most trusted aides that lyndon johnson. he was tangentially involved in the daisy girl add. it was produced by the madison -- still a prominent advertising term -- firm. they produced that ad and brought it to lyndon johnson to to show tought it lyndon johnson and his people. johnson started to get some phone calls from friends who are reacting to the spot, some of them reacting negatively and moyers is called to the second floor of the white house and
johnson makes quite a production moyers downing about the spot and telling him to look into this. he turns, goes back to the elevator. moyers says that johnson follows him to the elevator instead, do you think we really only run it once? johnson was recognizing it was a good spot. moyers may have been in on the decision to tell them not to air it again but he is nothing to do with its creation. bob, democrats line. caller: hello, good morning. yes, i want to comment. i guess i'm old enough to remember how things were back in 19 64 and i remember in 1964 ad, it wase daisy
very effective, but it was also .eally accurate at the time, goldwater, he was very radical about the use of nuclear weapons. he was also a racist, which people do not bring up, but he was. he voted against the 1964 voting or the 1965 ad, but he voted no and he was a known .acist workeds in the deficit in the southern states and many people in the democratic party switched parties and aligned with the southern republicans. but from that point on, the next -agnew, hewith nixon
did have serious problems. i think it was pretty well known and that is why that ad was so effective back then. host: all right, bob. robert mann. 1964. to his point about there was a lot of knowledge in the voters minds about goldwater's minds. campaign believed that that that they would focus on that. theirey came up with
that the united states fear going to war with the soviet union. oft was going to be a flight spots attacking goldwater over became for five spots that attacked him on the issue of nuclear war and proliferation. riotsk they probably were , it was a more effective message to put forth because of voters were just much more aware of where goldwater stood on nuclear war men where he stood on civil rights. out-earnment from oklahoma. he says, please keep in mind that many families did not own televisions at the time that the ad was -- in the timeframe being discussed. were talk about where we
in 1952 versus 1980. in 1952 very about million homes with televisions in them. had roughly one television. by 19641968, 1970's, 1980's, every home had a television. it was really total saturation. even today there are people who televisions, but remember it in those days all you had to do was have an antenna. you did not have to pay for cable. maybe people in rural areas to get the kind of reception -- people did not pay for cable back in 1964, 1972 areas host: -- 1972. host: but we are glad that they
are paying for it now. we have the mass communications professor from louisiana state university. let's move ahead to the 1988 race of george h.w. bush and michael dukakis. [video clip] >> bush and a cup of some crime. supports the death penalty for murderers. -- willie horton received 10 weekend passes run prison. he kidnapped a young couple, stabbing the man and repeatedly raping his government. weekend prison passes, dukakis on crime. >> george bush talks about prison furloughs, but he will not tell you that the massachusetts program was
bushed by republican and will not talk about this drug dealerler -- that was furlough. the real story on for those is george bush has taken a furlough from the truth. host: who is behind the infamous willie horton ad? that ad was produced by a third-party political organization that was very closely aligned with the republican party, called the national security back. when it was taken off, the bush campaign immediately went on the -- there isuch more
aprogram that showed revolving door, people going into prison and coming out of prison and mentioned willie horton or it willie horton was not the only figure discussed in that spot, but it was based on the willie horton spot. a lot of people confuse the two. they think the first spot was a bush ad. it really wasn't, but there was some either spoken or unspoken coordination because they were so closely aligned. i think it's fair to say, worth pointing out that willie horton or at least not willie horton specifically, it was raised earlier in the primaries by out gore who was running for the democratic nomination against michael dukakis. he raised the furlough issue first and inspect it up. dukakis use the revolving door imagery in the
--ponse, didn't they? guest: didn't they? guest: that is something i have seen curious. a lot of political and gators to tell the candidate, do not but i do notarge, know that it would be incompetent, but it was a poorly .un campaign in so many ways the dukakis campaign waited too long to respond. and aike one spot showing few minutes later, you see another spot on television, it was several weeks before dukakis figured out how to respond and that was the story of the .ukakis campaign they delete and allete over them. you saw bill
clinton institute for war room. dukakis was caught flat-footed and he never really recovered from the furlough spots and the ranr spots that bush against him. was a national voice over artist name of mary lemmon -- the people who did these ads, did they ever have a disadvantage in terms of them being labeled one political party or the other? you know, i don't know. i have not heard of anyone being labeled. it may be the case. this is something i did not mention early on. remember earlier when we show that bob and ike spot, both of , theoices were mel blanc
voice of bugs bunny and elmer five and the other spots, i like ike was the spot produced by disney, roy disney, walt disney's brother. there are these great examples of prominent people, well known voice actors and maybe do not get the credit they deserve, and they might not often want the credit. was actors, i understand are generally doing it or the paycheck. consultants are looking for a particular kind of voice, not the new agrees with the politics area -- politics. host: letter from art in tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. [indiscernible] about theuestion
progression -- apologize.i your phone is really breaking up. maybe try telling that can. rocky on the republican line. i want to make a statement with regard to view use of the moneys that democrats get released and used for these commercials, they would be better used for the people in this world who are without the money so they could live a decent life, like they are .upposed to be that's all it got to say. god bless you. man,n, your response ann, your response.
of timee spend a lot talking about the cost. it's a fraction of what spends.a you look at the total amount of money that is spent on advertising products of all .tripes across the board the amount of political advertising is a drop in the bucket. by the time election day comes along, you feel like you have seen nothing but political ads, but they are really concentrated and it magnifies in the voters minds much money is been spent. relatively speaking, it's not that much. welcome our viewers from the u.k. and are partnership with the bbc parliament channel. this is dennis.
hi there. caller: good morning. againstuccessfully one -- won against republican voter suppression, it always seems like his republicans suppressing the boat. have you ever seen evidence of the democrats trying to suppress the vote? first of all, dennis, you should be a voice actor. you have a great voice. you should consider narrating a spot. that's a good question. i think what you see right now votery don't use the word suppression so much. it's public and mostly talking about that. i think it's generally agreed -- maybe is not accurately --
accurate, but the generally leads a position that the more people who vote, the better it is marginally for democrats. democrats tend to turn out more in big elections, in andidential election years margins.e small --re political advertising it's talking around the question little bit, but i would like to bring it back -- there is a sense that has been in political thatce for a long time depressesdvertising turnout. if we can make the campaign as nasty as possible, people will be turned off. there used to be a sense that republicans and some democrats would want you to be disgusted and walk away and that is what we had so much negative advertising. . don't think that's the case
at it used to be seen as voter suppression tool. host: a comment this is can you comment on this as brand reinforcement versus renting upon it by "going negative." interesting that the media is the and is the state, yet election years or boom years in revenue for media companies, boards -- billions of dollars pumped into companies whose boards and leadership are deeply conservative coming at the front-line employees are accused of being biased. it may be sounds like i am contradicting myself a little bit. these tv stations are happy to .ave that money
i am not diminishing the impact. although, if you are living in a , you are probably not seeing as many ads for trial lawyers and car dealers. you will start seeing those november 4. host: therst question difference between branding and attacking. guest: that's a great question. this bioe will see spot that al gore ran -- we may see one that john kerry runs in 2004 -- it used to be really common the candidates would run these minute long bio spots.
george h w bush ran one in 1988. just sort of introduce myself to .he voters sort of brand myself you don't seeing those so much anymore. on the local level, the state and local level, it's very common to see these spots as an effort to brand and here's the other part of it. the opposition, bill clinton did this in 1996 famously to bob dole, started early, early, early in the year, earlier than most presidential candidates do, advertising attack spots to brand him, to label him before he could do it for himself. host: we will get to those ads.
this is about 20 minutes left in our history of presidential campaign advertising with our guest robert mann and your causing comments. this is from the 1992 ad. [video clip] was born in i little rock, ours -- arkansas. i've met president kennedy at and iys nation program was just thinking what an incredible country this was the someone like me that had no money or anything would be given the opportunity to meet the resident and that's when i decided i could really do public service because i cared so much about people. i worked my way through law school with our time jobs, anything i could find. after i graduated i did not care about making a lot of money.
i just went to go home and see if i could make a difference. we worked hard in education and health care. we could change people's lives for the better bring hope back to the american dream. i don't know much about clinton except promises. >> he tells people what they want to hear. >> he was to spend more money. >> less food on the table. >> i don't know how we can take any more taxes. >> he raised taxes in arkansas. he will raise taxes here. >> less money for everything. >> who is the best qualified person on the job -- on the stage to create jobs. i suggest you might consider
someone a created jobs. who is the best person to manage money. who is the best person get results? look at the record, make your decision. finally, who would you give your pension fund and your savings account to to manage, and the last 1 -- who would you ask to be the trustee of your estate to take care of your children is something happen to you? god bless you, i'm doing this for you. i want you to have your american dream. and to the american people, i am doing this because i love you. that's it. mann lsu, the ross perot spot is the least produced of the ones we will be showing.
guest: it is my favorite because it is so unproduced, is just pure ross perot into your living room and i like it. i mean, i really like it. i don't think it was an ineffective ad at all. captured ross perot, his humanity, his --inspoken this, the plainspokenness. host: and the man from a hope. yes, that was a masterpiece. that was a 62nd distillation of a 15-minute film that was produced by linda bloodworth thomason, who was a very successful hollywood television producer who had several -- "designing women" and "evening very popular shows at
the time. she and her husband were very the clintons.ith it was shown at the democratic convention and it was electrifying and very effective because here is clinton, this graduate of georgetown and yale, who, for a lot of people who did that know much about him at the time thought he was a child of privilege, had grown up and while, and this film is really designed to show he came from the heartland, he came from modest means. he was one of us. the idea that he was born in a town called hope is just perfect. you couldn't write a better name of a the hometown for a political candidate, and in the most electrifying part of that spot -- here is clinton talking about himself as the bridge between camelot and the new democratic
party and you literally have bill clinton shaking hands in the rose garden with john f. kennedy. it was not just a rhetorical connection, a physical connection and i think it was bio really one of the best spots we have seen. and it's really a masterpiece. it's just a beautiful piece of advertising. from maryland.om democrats' line. hello, professor. thank you for coming on. i was very interested in the bush ad you shown. it should me how bush ran to extend reaganism and how reagan ran as a law and order
president. my question is, has this message become less effective as a form of propaganda with the trump campaign has you think this form of racism connects with the average of white voter these days as opposed to back in the 1980's and maybe even with nixon? host: ok, tom, thank you. i think bush was effective in doing this because you caucus was so inept in responding to it. there were better ways to respond to it. candidates an inept in so many ways. the most effective use of that law in order was when there's been a challenger critiquing the governance of the incumbent so,
richard nixon very effectively challenging -- portraying the --ld under lyndon johnson that was very effective. i think it's probably less effective for the incumbent to up -- you elect to my elect my opponent you will not have what you have. that is why it has not been a very effective message for president trump. line, westrats' virginia. caller: good morning. i was kind of disappointed you skipped the 1976 election with ford and carter. gerald ford's presidency had the then tot they had to -- face election in tw years, so
the foreign policy was restricted, had to take a backseat to the domestic policy and i was just wondering what did you have to say about the 1976 campaign? that campaign -- those ads were interesting. that was a rough campaign. it was interesting knowing how those two candidates became very good friends later in life and jimmy carter delivered the funeral. gerald ford's you would never imagine that would be possible. jimmy carter is basically running against the corruption of the next and administration, promising, tying richard nixon to gerald ford, promising a new start and if we had more time we would want to show the bio spot the jimmy carter ran, anchoring
the keen upeorgia, farmer, showing his hometown. they were very effective, but also, i think more so very effective in framing carter as a complete and total break. years.barely two a reminder to all of our callers, you can read robert mann's books about the topics. we can get to everything, but let's at least get to the 2000's some of thee are ads in the 2000 campaign of george bush and al gore. here is a look. [video clip] >> 1969, america in turmoil.
al gore graduates from college. his father opposes the war. when he comes him from vietnam, the last thing he thinks he will ever do is enter politics. he becomes a reporter. in our court decided to change what was wrong in america, he had to fight for what was right. , andn for congress hearings on cleaning up toxic waste, broke with his own party to support the gulf war, fought to reform welfare with work requirements and guidance. all ouron to preserve families, not just a few, strengthen social security, hold schools accountable for results, tax cuts for working families in the middle class. gore, married 30 years, father of four. under clinton-gore, prescription drug prices have
skyrocketed. mr. bush: every senior love access to prescription drug benefit. >> al gore pushing a big government planned that will let washington bureaucrats interfere with what your doctors provide -- prescribed. prescription plan -- seniors choose. that professor mann, george bush prescription add has a subliminal message. it is called the rat add, tell us why. the word bureaucrats -- this is about health care, prescription drug plans and it's not an ad about -- is not attacking, is positive and negative, but when the word bureaucrats comes up on the
screen, for one third of one second is enlarged, you see the last four letters -- rats. , notviewers somewhere anyone connected with the gore campaign, saw it and alerted someone in the press that this thing had shown "rats" for third of a second and there was a several days long brouhaha about whether the bush campaign implement a subliminal message. there are people you will find you will still have a very spirited argument about, number one, whether those liminal were asked a subliminal messages were, and whether it was intentional or not. and for third of a second it is hard to imagine that anyone would have noticed it. the idea was no one would have noticed it consciously, but unconsciously, you would take
democrats were rats. that seems too cute by half, but maybe not. host: more full and calls. burlington, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. wrench mean to throw a in to your program but i think there's an elephant in the room and that is this. we have advertising that is done and approved and of paid for by candidates and that's always a tagline on the advertising that is done. but we have the biased journalists who are on the air for hours and hours of the time and nobody tells us who approves them being on the air. steve scully is an interesting study. i have been a dedicated c-span watchers since back in the 1970's with brian lamb, etc.,
etc. the situation with steve scully -- host: i am going to let you go. the company has addressed the issue of steve scully and made plain that steve scully's twitter account was hacked. yes, he served as an intern in the biden and kennedy offices 40 years ago, like thousands of other college students in this country, he was an intern back then. i suggest you take a look at the range of steve's work in the course of his career. video look at c-span's library will find thousands of instances of the broad range of coverage. his twitter account was hacked. we appreciate you calling in. thank you for the
excellent presentation this morning. i know that traditionally the campaigns started out for labor , but as the trend toward earlier balloting continues, is that legislated, regulated and is there a chance it might move earlier in the year to be more effective? guest: wow. great question. it has definitely changed the way that the can't -- the candidates are campaigning. who knows what the world will look like four years from now, if the trend is toward much more earlier voting, if you are not a fan of these campaigns, you will campaign season.
if you're in swing states, you have put up with a year of this. seeing thesely not if you great number, but are living in a place like florida or ohio or michigan or wisconsin, nevada, arizona, you will be seeing spots like this .ll year long fitzsimmonsn in army hospital. both of my parents taught me about public service. i enlisted because i believe in service to country. i thought it was important to give something back to your country. >> the decisions he made save your lives. when he pulled me out of the
river, he risked his life to save mine. >> if you look at my father's service to this country whether it is as a veteran, prosecutor, a senator, he has fought for things that matter. >> john is someone who is generous of spirit. >> we are a country of optimists. >> a lifetime of service and strength. john kerry for president. raped, have personally cut off ears, cut off heads. >> the accusations john kerry made against the veterans who served in vietnam -- >> the accusations hurt me more than the physical ones i had. >> cutting up limbs. >> that was part of the torture, to sign a statement that you
committed war crimes. the enemy forgave free what i and many of my to torture to avoid saying. it demoralized us. >> he betrayed us in the past. how could we be loyal to him now? ande dishonored his country more importantly, the people who served with. veterans for truth is responsible for the content of this advertising. swift votet act, the add, what was the origin of that? >> that was one of at least four spots run by this organization called swift boat veterans for truth that was a group of had ans, many of whom ill willed and data against john
kerry's one when he testified against the vietnam war, before the senate, and kerry begins his spot,gn with this bio it's all built around his valor in vietnam, and this third-party adsp begins running these attacking and undermining the claims about how he won these metals and that major issue in the campaign. example of how a third-party organization can run balloonsand how it into a major campaign issue. it became the centerpiece of the campaign. -- down about
five points when he ran those ads. those ads destroyed john kerry's campaign. host: mass communications professor at you are watching american history >> up next on american history tv, university of mary washington professor william rooseveltscusses it a with attention on his life and legacy. the university of mary washington hosted this event and provided the video. >> i am pleased to announce a miniseries of six lectures entitled great presidential lives. this series is attractive for two main reasons. the first beins