Imperial Valley Press

Before he was ‘kinder, gentler,’ Bush pioneered TV ad lies

- DICK POLMAN Dick Polman is the national political columnist at WHYY in Philadelph­ia and a Writer in Residence at the University of Pennsylvan­ia. Email him at dickpolman­7@gmail.com

Thirty years ago at The Philadelph­ia Inquirer, in the early autumn of 1988, I was handed my first assignment as a political writer. The presidenti­al candidates, Vice President George H. W. Bush and Massachuse­tts Gov. Michael Dukakis, were saturating the airwaves with campaign ads — to an extent never seen before — and I analyzed the imagery in a dozen articles.

It was obvious, right from the start, that Bush was sloshing in the sewer. His ad campaign — crafted by two of the GOP’s most notorious junkyard dogs, Roger Ailes (future founder of Fox News), and Lee Atwater (the pre-eminent race-baiter of his era) — broke new ground for TV demagoguer­y and foreshadow­ed the lying toxicity that is now routine.

I’ll stipulate that Bush, now dead at 94, was a well-mannered nice guy in life.

During his 1989 inaugural speech, he promised a “kinder, gentler” America, and he indeed tried to set a tone that’s the antithesis of what we’re forced to endure today.

But what he did during that 1988 campaign — and what we in the press allowed him to get away with — can’t be whitewashe­d.

Bush’s TV ads lied so relentless­ly that the press began to realize, for the first time, that its traditiona­l rules — balance and objectivit­y — were inadequate to the task at hand.

Thanks to Bush, the practice of fact-checking was born.

Alas, it didn’t happen very often. Most political reporters, shackled to the traditiona­l rules, generally focused on the “negative” tone of the ads and left the impression that both candidates were throwing mud in equal proportion­s.

Parsing the falsity of the ads was still considered “subjective,” and it was only at the close of the campaign when most reporters wished they had fast-checked far more often.

Most infamously, one ad contended that Dukakis was a soft-on-crime governor who had furloughed a black inmate, Willie Horton, who in turn had taken advantage of his freedom by raping a white woman.

This was buttressed by a second Bush ad, which asserted that he had allowed 268 first-degree murderers to escape from the furlough program.

In truth (rarely reported), the furlough program had been created by Dukakis’ Republican predecesso­r, and only four of the furloughed inmates had murder conviction­s.

Other Bush ads falsely claimed that Dukakis was soft on national defense: “Michael Dukakis has opposed virtually every defense system we have developed.” In truth (rarely reported), Dukakis supported the Stealth bomber, the Trident II submarine, the SSN21 Seawolf attack submarine, a new ballistic missile called the D5 and a slew of other weapons.

I managed to fact-check those Bush ads late in the campaign, but under the rules of that era, I couldn’t report that his ads were full of “lies.”

The editors OK’d the phrase “dubious credibilit­y.”

Other Bush ads falsely painted Dukakis as a polluter who had dirtied Boston Harbor.

One of the visuals showed a sign reading, “Danger/Radiation Hazard/ No Swimming.” In truth (rarely reported), Dukakis in 1986 had created a new agency to clean up the harbor at a cost of $6 billion — and that President Reagan in 1987 had vetoed a Clean Water Act that would’ve helped finance a harbor cleanup. And in truth (rarely reported) the sign in the ad, warning about the danger of radiation, was not posted at Boston Harbor. It appeared decades earlier at a Navy yard where nuclear subs were often repaired.

The press’ sporadic fact-checking efforts could not keep pace with the Bush campaign’s lies.

But there was general agreement, after the election, that fact-checking should become more routine. Even the strategist­s in both parties called on the press to do it. Democratic adviser Robert Squier told an audience of political reporters, “When a candidate says something that is untrue, say so.

Don’t stand on the sidelines. Be a referee.” And Republican adviser Dan Sipple said, “If reporters don’t analyze the truth and falsity of the ads, it’s bastardizi­ng the role of the press, which is to inform.”

In subsequent decades, we in the press have often shirked our responsibi­lity — most infamously, during the prelude to junior Bush’s disastrous Iraq war — but senior Bush and his ad-makers essentiall­y taught us that we should be arbiters of truth, not stenograph­ers in the service of lies.

The fact-checking industry that flourishes today was birthed in the sewer of 1988.

Thanks, Poppy!

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States