False ads abound -- and often work

Outright falsehoods are too frequent, observers say, in the 2008 presidential campaign

Distortions, stretches, half-truths and omissions are familiar features of political campaigns. But independent fact-checkers and analysts say that outright falsehoods in candidates' ads may be reaching a level not seen since TV commercials entered presidential politics more than half a century ago.

It is happening, they say, because false advertising has worked; because there are few, if any, penalties for it; and because truth becomes a relative and disputable term in the alternate reality of partisan politics -- or as George Costanza once put it on "Seinfeld," "It's not a lie if you believe it."

"They're drinking their own Kool-Aid," said Brooks Jackson, director of the nonpartisan FactCheck.org at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. "I've come to believe that an awful lot of the time they believe the ads. They've convinced themselves.

"We saw something that fascinated me," he said. "Several political reporters noted that Sarah Palin and John McCain continued to repeat the fable that she was a big opponent of the so-called Bridge to Nowhere. Everybody wrote about it, and they kept saying it anyway," in speeches and in TV ads.

Pushing the envelope

Political scientist Darrell West examined past patterns in his book "Air Wars: Television Advertising in Election Campaigns." He said the most dubious and misleading ads generally have come from groups independent of candidates, such as those who made the "Swift Boat" ads against John Kerry in 2004.

"This year, the candidates themselves have really pushed the envelope," West said. "The 2008 campaign has reached all-time lows in the use of misleading and inaccurate political appeals. Even Karl Rove, the architect of negative ads in previous campaigns, has complained about the tenor of this year's campaign."

"When Karl Rove says that," Jackson added, "you probably ought to pay attention."

Barack Obama has been cited for ads that quoted McCain out of context to say he would support "100 years" of war in Iraq or that said McCain would slash Social Security benefits.

Obama's campaign also aired a higher percentage of negative ads than McCain's -- 77 percent to 56 percent -- in the first wave of advertising after the conventions, according to a study by the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project.

But negative is not necessarily untruthful.

PolitiFact.com, a project of Congressional Quarterly and the St. Petersburg Times, rated 47 McCain ads and statements from "barely true" to "pants-on-fire" false, compared with 30 for Obama. McCain had six ads in the "pants-on-fire" category. Obama had one.

"McCain ... has had the bigger problem in terms of factual accuracy," West said. The Republican, he added, was the one coming up in the polls until the crisis in financial markets started this month.

Two McCain ads drew particular notice from fact-checkers. One said Obama's "one accomplishment" was "legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners" -- misrepresenting his support for teaching them about inappropriate touching by adults, and understating his record.

The other said a "disrespectful" Obama compared Sarah Palin to a pig. Actually, he was talking about McCain's claim to be a force for change when he said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, it's a still a pig" -- using an expression that McCain once applied to Hillary Clinton's health-care plan.

Whatever the intent or term, false and negative ads often work very well, said Dr. Carolyn Lin, a communications professor at the University of Connecticut. "When it works, it works like a charm, and historically it has worked. That's why they do it.

"The unfortunate thing about political advertising," she added, "is that when you tell lies, these lies often stick, and the liars never receive any penalties."

Studies have shown that debunking falsehoods can have the backfire effect of reinforcing falsehoods by repeating them.