"washington journal" looked at the history of these ads, beginning with the 1952 election, and into the 21st century. robert mann, journalism chair at louisiana state university's school of mass communication , joined us to take viewer questions and tweets. he is the author of "daisy petals and mushroom clouds: lbj, barry goldwater, and the ad that changed american politics." [video clip] >> ike for president, ike for president >> ike for president, ike for president you like ike, i like ike everybody likes ike >> for president >> hang out the banner beat the drum we'll take ike to washington >> we don't want john >> or dean >> or harry >> let's do that big job right let's get in step with the guy that's hip get in step with ike >> you like ike, i like ike, >> everybody likes ike for president hang out the banner beat the drum we will take ike to washington if we got together we are going all day and night >> ike for president >> adlai, go the other way we all go with ike >> you like ike >> i like ike

>> everybody likes ike >> for president >> hang out the banner beat the drum we'll take ike to washington we'll take ike to washington ♪ >> now is the time for all good americans to come to the aid of their country. >> ♪ ike for president, ike for resident -- president ♪ [video clip ends] [video clip plays] >> ike. -- >> ike. >> bob. >> ike. >> bob. i am so glad we are friends again, bob. >> yes, ike, we agree on everything. >> let's never separate again, bob. >> never again, ike. >> bob. >> ike. >> bob. >> ike. announcer: will ike and bob really live happily ever after? is the white house big enough for both of them? stay tuned for a musical interlude.

♪ >> ♪ reuben, reuben, i've been thinking bob and ike now think alike with the general in the white house, who will give the orders, bob or ike? let's vote for adlai and john ♪ [video clip ends] 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 professor robert mann, professor of mass communications at louisiana state university and author of "daisy petals and mushroom clouds." take a look, these 90 minutes, here at the history of tv political ad -- advertising. professor mann, thanks for joining us here. guest: thank you. good to be with you this morning. host: we start with 1952, so that was the first year television was used as a medium for political ads? yeah, 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 a regional television linkup along the east coast. but, really, 1952 was the first time that you saw candidates advertising in a way that was not just a speech. so even though we are going to see a lot of spots this morning, these 30-, 60-second spots, it's important to remember from the beginning, i think, that 1952, 1956, 1960, the candidates still saw television as a way to give speeches. so, in 1952, for example, even though adlai stevenson, the democratic nominee, and dwight eisenhower, the republican nominee, were airing some spot advertising, the vast majority of people who were seeing them, or at least -- certainly with stevenson -- were seeing them give 18-, 30-minute speeches at 10:30 at night on tuesdays and

thursdays in the latter part of the campaign. and both candidates were very reluctant to do this kind of spot advertising. they just -- 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 of spots, a lot of ads, in the next hour and a half year with professor bob mann from lsu. we welcome your calls and your comments and questions on ads that are particularly notable to you. so we will open up our lines. for republicans, it's (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002. so it is fair to say both candidates in 1952, ike eisenhower and adlai stevenson, had to be pushed to do advertising, correct? guest: yeah. so, there was an advertising

executive who was fairly prominent, fairly famous for his innovations at the time, rosser reeves, who worked with the ted bates agency. and he was hired by the eisenhower campaign to manage their advertisements. at the time, eisenhower and his people thought it just would be, as i said earlier, just speeches. reeves looks at one of eisenhower's speeches, i think it was his announcement speech early in the campaign, and came to the conclusion -- he made two major conclusions. that eisenhower was a terrible speaker and that these 30-minute speeches were just too complex , too long, that people left the speech without having a single idea of really what it was about. it was just kind of a jumble of issues. and so, he persuaded eisenhower to do this spot advertising. and the major way that people were seeing eisenhower spots was not this animated spot, this jingle you just saw, which is

interesting, and a lot of people enjoy watching it because it is sort of recognized as the first political spot, but most eisenhower spots were these 20-second "eisenhower answers america," where eisenhower just looks in the camera and answers questions from average people off the street. and eisenhower thought it was humiliating. stevenson thought his spots were a humiliating exercise that really degraded the candidacy and the office of the president. they were both sort of dragged into doing this. host: two quick questions about the ads we just saw about eisenhower and stevenson. one, the donkeys in that animated 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 that you see riding the -- going backwards, which, as you point out, is sort of a subtle

negative ad, that is john sparkman, who was adlai stevenson's running mate. -- who was adlai stevenson's -- a democratic senator from alabama who was adlai stevenson's running mate. dean atchinson, who was the secretary of state under truman who was much reviled by conservatives and republicans and adlai stevenson, the nominee. in the other ad, the "bob and ike," the bob was bob taft, robert taft, who was mr. conservative, the leader of the conservative republicans, senator from ohio, son of president taft. and before -- eisenhower ran against taft. taft was his main opponent for the nomination in 1952, and to win taft's support, he went to taft and promised him he would support his conservative agenda and even promised that he would give taft some patronage. and democrats called that "the great surrender," that eisenhower had gone and surrendered to taft, and that taft was now controlling the nominee. so the point of that spot is that they had fallen in love, and taft has captured eisenhower. he is actually going to be the

power behind the throne if eisenhower is elected president. host: the title of your book, bob mann, is "daisy petals and mushroom clouds," based on the "daisy" ad, so let's go to that ad, the 1964 ad from the lyndon -- by the lyndon johnson campaign, and we will follow that with ads from the goldwater campaign. here is a look. [video clip] [birds chirping] >> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 6, 6, 8, 9, 9 -- >> 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 to 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. [video clip ends] [video clip plays] ♪ announcer: graft. ♪ swindles. ♪ juvenile delinquency. ♪ crime. ♪ riots. ♪ hear what barry goldwater has to say about our lack of moral leadership. mr. goldwater: 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, and 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. [video clip ends] host: there is a lot there. -- 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 in the country at that time, in 1964. we are still in the shadow of the cuban missile crisis. teeth,still armed to the 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 -- that 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 very prominent leader of the conservative wing of the republican party 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 reporters, "i am not interested in sending a man to the moon. i want to lob a missile of the men's room of the kremlin." he calls the nuclear bomb just another weapon. he goes on television and 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 very well. that spot takes advantage -- it is clever in many ways -- 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 information and knowledge and emotions that they brought to that spot. that is what makes it so , and ireaking, so clever think, so effective. it put the viewers to work. it 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: it only ran once as a paid ad on september 7, 1964. probably, in those days, there was only three networks, so probably around 40 million, 50

million people saw that ad. it was not unusual to run that ad a couple of times and then move onto to something else. host: i thought -- go ahead. 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 to it. it made news, which ensured got a free ride on the networks later in the week. i am guessing between 70 million and 100 million people saw it by the end of the week. host: i thought it was interesting -- we always associated richard nixon with barryw and, but with goldwater, that is his 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 to air it as a political program on national television.

goldwater saw it and decided -- he said it was a racist spot. he stopped it from being run by the goldwater campaign on national television. it did get run on regional , local television stations, and a lot of house parties. but they did take the essence of it and distill it down to this 32nd spot which try to take advantage of the anxiety in the public -- 32nd spot that took of the anxiety in the public 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 nervous and scared about it, 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 c-span's "washington journal." we are welcoming your phone calls. we will get to the momentarily. (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 , more reflective of the ads shown during theater intermissions. the american culture was much more conservative then." his observation. guest: yeah. from 1952 through 1964, "infancy" is the right word to use. the people who were doing this stuff for politicians were really experimenting. they did not really know what they were doing.

today you would hire an ad firm, one that specializes only in producing political spots that relied on gobs of public opinion research. they just didn't know anything about that. these were mostly technicians who were producing most of the spots. there were people who arranged the presentation of a 30-minute speech, or a four- to five-minute distillation. it was not until bernbach, the madison avenue firm that got the account to do lyndon johnson's campaign, that true advertising principles were brought to presidential campaigns. the reason i wrote my book about this is because this is the hinge moment in american political advertising when everybody saw, oh, 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. that involve the viewer, 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 go to our collars. 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 off right after that line, where he did

not condemn white supremacists, neo-nazis, and -- 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, today, 2020 ads, compared to what we are seeing here in 1952? 1964? guest: it is a torrent of ads. and they are targeted in a way they were not. in 1964, the daisy ad, the ad we saw, were mostly meant to be aired on national television. even then there were certainly swing states. more of them, but 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 more finely sliced and diced electorate based on profiling and political polling that these candidates and their campaigns

do. if you see an ad, especially if you see it online -- you are just scrolling through the internet -- that is usually an ad that was intended exactly for you or a person just like you. it was not meant for your neighbor. it made not have been -- it may not have been for your spouse. it was meant for you personally because either of your shopping behavior, 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 as opposed to 1964 and before the invention of the internet. host: let's hear from john in mechanicsburg, pennsylvania. caller: thanks for taking my call. just curious. from doing the research i remember 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. were those men right? was kennedy and merle right? when they said, we are not using television to educate? just to amuse and entertain? 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 say they were not so much 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. maybe you had a couple of local newspapers. some radio news. but 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 is good, you may think that is 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 are getting your news in one way, your neighbor 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

or maybe they were criticizing something that they -- they certainly did not anticipate the internet, but here we are. host: let's go to tim, north chicago, illinois on our independent line. 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 campaigns. 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 and maybe embarrass a candidate into removing an ad or changing an ad. but sort of the prevailing rules since the advent of television have been the federal elections commission 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. and television stations cannot -- this goes to broadcast television -- cannot censor those. they cannot tell them, "you cannot say that." it is the most highly form of 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 to it? 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 texts inly and tax -- 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 plays] ♪ announcer: it is time for an honest look at the problem of order in the united states.

dissent is a necessary ingredient of change, but in a system of government that provides for peaceful change, there is no cause to 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] [man's laughter] [coughing] host: bob mann, on the nixon ad,

the tagline, "vote like your whole world depends on it," "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 campaign five minutes to respond to it with the rejoinder, "in your guts, you know he's nuts." [laughter] or, "in your heart, you know he might." those taglines were really big in those days. it is a reflection of the sense that republicans and conservatives had 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 from cynthia. she says, "1964's in your heart you know he's right" becomes "suburbs under threat 2020." onto what is called the "laughing man" ad. an ad mocking spiro agnew. did people get that ad at the time? guest: yes, and no. it was not like -- it is in the same spirit of the daisy girl using that it is knowledge, information, emotions that voters -- or is trying to -- that voters already have. they are expected to do some of the work. you know, the agnew of october 1968 in the voter's mind was certainly not the agnew of 1974. but there were questions about agnew's behavior, ethics, his morality at the time. agnew was already making some statements that were mildly embarrassing to the republicans. and so, he was unknown.

he was a largely unknown person, and 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 resonance if you had run it in 1972 or 1974 than 1968. host: quick question from robert in clearwater, florida. how much did a commercial cost back in 1950's and 1960's to run? guest: excellent question. if you werebecause 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. costdaisy girl" spot 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 today, because they are expensive. they are not well targeted. people like going to local markets to get more efficiency for your money. host: let's go to callers. republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the trip down memory lane. so much has changed since the early days. the media also plays a role. the news was much less opinion. of course, we had newspapers and television and radio things. presidential advertisements, but i do still keep in mind that they are advertisements.

i was wondering -- since so much media,nged with social how many people are really affected by these ads? are they worth the money spent on them and has that changed since the 1960's or the 1950's when they started? guest: that is the essential question of all of this. what difference does make? i started out with my book on the daisy girl spot thinking that spot destroyed. goldwater's candidacy. what i found is that it didn't. it had very little impact. beforeer was before -- that spot aired goldwater was going to lose the race. after that aired, whole flight of rough spots that the johnson campaign aired -- the race was unchanged.

right now, there is maybe 3-5% of the voters out there are undecided. you know, these candidates are spending hundreds of millions of dollars and that a very small percentage of people, many of whom do not vote at all. those decisions have already been made. but, candidates and campaigns have been doing this from time immemorial. i think a lot of campaigns do it because they don't know what else to do now. at the local and state levels, u.s. senate, congressional, open races, i think they do make a difference. in those cases, many voters do not have a lot of information about the candidates. newspapers are going out of business. tv stations are airing less political news. that of the information voters get today is not from the media. they get it from the candidate

commercials. i think they do have more impact down the line than they do at the presidential level. host: here is don in oklahoma. independent line. good morning. caller: yes, robert. i've got several questions here. one time this ad biden ran in the last segment about blaming trump for all of the coronavirus deaths, which he did the best he could. he did much better than biden would have ever done. anyway, he said he refers to how many empty chairs there is at the table. i just wondered, how many of these chairs are little high chairs that the democrats are putting at these tables? and another thing about the replacement of the supreme court

justice -- host: john, i'm going to let you go there. we are focusing on the history of presidential campaign tv ads. next we go to richland, washington. democrats line. caller: hello? host: high there, you are on the air. when you showed that this morning, it took me back to when i was seven years old. it is amazing. -- not theng how first part, of course, but the second part. the other thing and wanted to ask you is -- this is the most important question. i don't know if you can answer it. it seems like during the 70's, -- the late 1970's, didn't it get to be like when jenny carson and other people used to be on -- one of my trying to

say? i say trump and biden were both running -- didn't they have the same exact time? one could not have more time than the other one? thanks for that mary. equal time is what she is offering two. -- referring to. guest: that is one of the reasons we did not have debates for time. that fairness doctrine. --would have had to have had at least lyndon johnson -- he did not want to debate. goldwater. everyld have insisted on third-party candidate being on stage. factor in big politics having politicians on, or interviews with johnny carson. you had to give equal time in some fashion to hubert humphrey. don't have that anymore. we recognize that these news organizations can use their

judgment. most people are happy with giving media organizations the ability to make that decision than having the federal government impose on both sides, a certain time they have to be on the air. about theestion broader issue of advertising from bob. he says, good morning. at some point would dr. mann compared tv ads over the same time? that is a very interesting question. the product advertising always leads the way . i have thought about this a lot and decided it is because, you know, bars of soap cannot talk back to the advertising executive. politicians can and do. tendals and conservatives

to be very conservative -- with a small c -- when it comes to their image. the messages and tactics they are willing to use in their ads which is why both 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. i think, if you want to know where political advertising is going, sometimes you have to -- you see where product advertising is today, that may be where political advertising is in five or 10 years. host: we are talking about presidential campaigns, tv advertisement with professor ma nn. american history tv is on every weekend on c-span three.

we welcome you to join us every weekend. are on "washington journal," coproduction as well. 1980, jimmy carter running against ronald reagan. here is a look. [video clip] >> each day many people come to the oval office with advice and information. when it comes time to decide something, president carter must decide alone. no matter how many advisors, the never escape the responsibility of understanding and issue himself. that is the only way a presidential decision can be made. and the only way this president has ever made president carter. one. >> i deeply, deeply resent and am offended by the attacks that president carter has made on my husband. the personal attacks. his attempt to paint my husband as a man he is not. he is not a warmonger, he is not

a man who is going to throw the elderly out on the street and cut out their social security. 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 to have him explain the vacillating, weak foreign policy, so our friends overseas do not know if we will stand up for them or if we are not going to stand up for them. the issue of this campaign is his record. >> the time is now for strong leadership. host: my first observation on the jimmy carter ad, it is dark. the ad itself is dark, but i understand -- he got a fair amount of pushback from using the oval office in a political campaign, did he not?

guest: absolutely. that was not something that was seen then or now as proper, using the white house itself as a stage for a political -- a blatant political spot. trump gets criticism for the events that -- 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 carter aired this year that showed him on air force one. he not only used the oval office in that spot, there was another spot that carter aired in what he was sitting at his oval office desk. appearing to be praying. it shows carter looking like he was bowing his head at the oval office desk, praying. what we are seeing now is not exactly new. host: on nancy reagan. i was struck and reminded, she was an actress. that was her career.

she spoke well on camera, her diction is great. was she the first potential future first lady, presidential candidate spouse to appear in an ad? guest: i am not aware of another one. lyndon johnson aired a spot in the 1964 that had him standing next to lady bird on the tarmac, returning to andrews air force base after the assassination of president kennedy, but it is the first time i am aware of that the candidate's wife is speaking speaking, tost talk about how wonderful her ,usband is, but it is a clever effective use of a candidate's wife to attack the other candidate, which kind of softens the blow. reagan's campaign

saying jimmy carter's attacking us, it is unfair, and she quickly pivots to attacking jimmy carter. so, their sense was that they could be seen as protesting the attacks and attacking back, but doing it in a soft way. the sense was they could be seen as attacking the other. the other thing about that spot that is effective, is she is clearly not reading from teleprompter -- when you see the candidate clearly conversing, i think they are always more effective. they seem more authentic. what is more, her message, part of her criticism is a substantive policy criticism of a vacillating foreign policy she . talks about jimmy carter, ignoring our allies overseas, which has some reflection of the current tone of the 2020 campaign. guest: that is the thing about

these spots. you go back to eisenhower answers america and those 22nd gots that were run in 1952, look at those and he would be gob smacked by how the themes are still the themes we are talking about today -- high energy prices, corruption in government. the degradation of our standing across the world. what we are talking about today are not old issues. just different people are wearing them. host: your calls and questions. we will go to the phones now with anna, on the republican line. caller: yes, i am calling about job item being on tv so much. i i called the cable company am getting so sick of it. i called the cable companythe other day and told him i think they should send my money back for this month because all i see when i sit down -- i 84 years am old.

i watched television and all i see is joe biden telling his lies. that man lies so bad and they talk about trump? wifeld on there about his getting killed and baby, and he was in the hospital, and he found out that one of his sons of cancer, four years later -- host: ok, to robert, virginia, democrats line. caller: 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. of this money we are donating to these campaigns, we are giving it to the campaign, and the campaign is giving it to all of these countries. it is a little bit ridiculous. i feel like there must be a better way to do this with some sort of -- 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 compare that spot to a pepsi at using some of the almost exact same images the pepsi was using to advertise its product. the morning in america spot was the culmination of the marriage politicalshington advertising and madison avenue. ing 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 theirs. music was clearly from the beginning -- i'm not aware of any other spot. i am not aware of any other spot .

-- nixon's campaign used a lot -- to doubt in pennsylvania. caller: wasn't bill moyers strongly associated with ad?loping the daisy 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. 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 >> american history tv on c-span three. coming up today, and author talks about his book on the capture of adolf eichmann. then a look at black prisoners of war and the confederacy. at 9 a.m. eastern, the final debate between ronald reagan and walter mondale. then, the second debate between george h w bush and michael dukakis. eastern, john f.

kennedy's speech on church and state followed by ronald reagan's speech. exploring the american story. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span three. >> this is american history tv, on c-span3. each weekend we feature 48 hours of programs exploring our nation's past. >> up next on american history tv, university of mary washington history professor william crawley discusses theodore roosevelt's life and legacy, with a particular focus on his presidency. the university of mary washington hosted this event and provided the video.