In a September 24 report on “ads” that the presidential campaigns paid to air few times, if at all, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz did not note that at least two McCain campaign ads that Kurtz mentioned included outright falsehoods. While Kurtz did note that an ad by Sen. John McCain's campaign was misleading in its attack on Sen. Barack Obama over a bill he voted for while an Illinois state senator, Kurtz did not point out that another ad he mentioned included the false accusation that Obama “dismissed” Gov. Sarah Palin as “good-looking” or that a different ad he mentioned falsely accused Obama of calling Palin a “pig.”

In the article, headlined “Talked-About Ads Were Seldom Aired,” Kurtz wrote: “Sen. John McCain received considerable publicity for a television ad accusing his Democratic opponent of having 'lashed out at Sarah Palin, dismissed her as good-looking ... then desperately called Sarah Palin a liar. How disrespectful.' ” However, Kurtz did not note the several distortions in the ad. In its analysis of the ad, nonpartisan watchdog group FactCheck.org noted that the ad “takes words out of context to make it sound as though the Democratic ticket is belittling Palin” and stated that it “distorts” each of the three Obama campaign statements it uses “to make the case” that Obama is “being 'disrespectful' of Palin.”

Kurtz also wrote that “an ad calling Obama's 'lipstick on a pig' comment an insult to Palin never ran on television.” But Kurtz did not note that the accusation is false, despite writing in a September 11 article: “Does anyone seriously believe that Barack Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig?”

From Kurtz's September 11 article:

The lipstick imbroglio is evidence that the Drudge/Fox/New York Post axis can drive just about any story into mainstream land. Does anyone seriously believe that Barack Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig? What about the fact that McCain has used “lipstick on a pig” before? What about the book by that title by former McCain aide Torie Clarke? Never mind: get the cable bookers to line up women on opposite sides of the lipstick divide and let them claw at each other!

Kurtz also asserted that "[a] hotly debated commercial charging Obama with taking advice from former Fannie Mae chief executive Franklin D. Raines aired three times." However, Kurtz did not report that both Raines and the Obama campaign have reportedly denied the claim that Obama took advice from Raines. In fact, Kurtz himself wrote in a September 22 column that the McCain ad's claim was “a huge stretch” and that “even by [Raines'] own account, he was hardly an Obama 'adviser.' ” Further, in a September 19 “Fact Checker Ad Watch" on washingtonpost.com, Post writer Michael Dobbs wrote that the evidence supporting the ad's claim is “pretty flimsy”:

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had “taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”

[...]

The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on “housing and mortgage policy.” If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself -- and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.

During a September 20 speech, Obama said of the purported Raines connection:

The same day my opponent attacked me for being associated with a Fannie Mae guy I've talked to for maybe 5 minutes in my entire life -- the same day he did that -- the head of the lobbying shop at Fannie Mae turned around and said, “Wait a minute. When I see photographs of Senator McCain's staff, it looks to me like the team of lobbyists who used to report to me.”

From the September 24 Washington Post article:

Sen. John McCain received considerable publicity for a television ad accusing his Democratic opponent of having “lashed out at Sarah Palin, dismissed her as good-looking ... then desperately called Sarah Palin a liar. How disrespectful.”

In the two weeks after the Republican convention, the commercial aired seven times.

Sen. Barack Obama drew substantial media attention for a spot declaring: “John McCain is hardly a maverick. ... Sarah Palin's no maverick, either. She was for the 'Bridge to Nowhere' before she was against it. Politicians lying about their records.” During the same period, that commercial aired eight times.

[...]

It is an open secret by now that both campaigns are flooding the market with what amount to video press releases. The phantom spots receive enormous amounts of free airtime, particularly on cable news channels, and are the subject of news stories and “ad watch” features in newspapers. Journalists have no way of knowing in advance which spots will involve a substantial buy and which will not.

Spokesmen for McCain and Obama would not comment on the practice.

McCain's best investment may have been the spot accusing Obama of supporting sex education for kindergarteners in Illinois, although the legislation called for “age-appropriate” teaching. It aired 43 times during the two-week period. A hotly debated commercial charging Obama with taking advice from former Fannie Mae chief executive Franklin D. Raines aired three times. And an ad calling Obama's “lipstick on a pig” comment an insult to Palin never ran on television.

Obama made headlines with a spot calling McCain out of touch because he didn't know how to use a computer and doesn't send e-mail. It aired six times. A commercial citing media criticism in accusing McCain of running the “sleaziest ads ever, truly vile” aired 19 times. And a spot charging McCain with dismissing the wage gap between men and women ran twice.

The pattern is that campaigns are putting the least money behind their most slashing spots, the kind that tend to drive news coverage. “The stuff they're putting weight behind is not all that tough,” Tracey said.