Smiley Producer: Luntz not appearing in Dem Forum
Luntz Remains Wrong Choice for PBS Democratic Forum Analysis on Tavis Smiley
Question: Will Luntz's Ties to GOP & Giuliani Ever Be Addressed by Smiley, PBS?
Washington, DC - Today Media Matters for America released the following statement in response to a release issued this morning by Neal Kendall, executive producer of PBS' Tavis Smiley, regarding concerns over the announced involvement of Republican pollster Frank Luntz in PBS' upcoming forum for Democratic presidential candidates:
David Brock, President and CEO of Media Matters:
"While Media Matters for America is pleased with PBS' announcement this morning that discredited Republican pollster Frank Luntz will not appear on its Thursday-night programming, PBS has yet to address the fundamental problem with its choice of Luntz to participate in analysis of the PBS forum.
"Luntz's Republican ties, his history of being criticized by his peers for misrepresenting polling data, and his past personal and professional affiliation with GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani make him an inappropriate choice to provide the sole voice of expert analysis on Mr. Smiley's program in the wake of a Democratic presidential primary forum. The fact that PBS has not acknowledged Luntz's partisan affiliation -- either in its original press release or in today's statement -- makes PBS' use of him in this way all the more troubling.
"Viewers of the Tavis Smiley program clearly deserve a balanced discussion of the previous night's Democratic forum and would benefit from the analysis of a polling expert beyond reproach, one without a clear conflict of interest and a questionable record. At the very least, PBS and Tavis Smiley have a responsibility to disclose Luntz's Republican ties and his past professional affiliation with Giuliani.
"It is our sincere hope that Tavis Smiley and PBS will reconsider their decision to have Luntz provide solo focus-group analysis on Smiley's Friday program and recognize their responsibility to the viewing public to fully disclose Luntz's partisan ties, conflict of interest, and controversial record on the air during Friday's broadcast."
BACKGROUND:
According to an April 4 press release issued by PBS: "Immediate public feedback on the performance of the candidates will be conducted by noted pollster Frank Luntz, who will also appear on 'Tavis Smiley' on PBS the following evening to discuss his findings." The release did not mention Luntz's long history as a Republican operative as well as his close ties to GOP presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
On Monday, David Brock, President and CEO of Media Matters for America, called on PBS to reconsider its decision to have Luntz participate in the coverage of its June 28 forum for Democratic presidential candidates. Media Matters noted that as a partisan Republican, Luntz has shown open disdain for Democratic priorities and candidates and has a long record of being criticized by his peers for misrepresenting polling data and methodology.
In an email to grassroots activists that same day, Brock encouraged those concerned by Luntz's scheduled appearances to contact PBS and the Tavis Smiley program directly to express their opinion about the inclusion of the discredited GOP pollster.
Wednesday morning, the executive producer of the Tavis Smiley program released a statement announcing that "Dr. Frank Luntz is NOT appearing on Thursday night's Presidential forum," but would be appearing on Friday's broadcast of Tavis Smiley. Once again, the statement failed to mention Luntz's long history as a Republican operative as well as his past ties to Giuliani.
Luntz's Recent Statements about Democratic Leaders
Does this sound like an objective pollster?
Edwards "is not going to be the next president"
Clinton is "not honest with the American people about where she stands"
* * *
Luntz was quoted in a February 24 Saturday Magazine article saying: "America won't elect John Edwards president for the same reason we've never elected a used car salesman. America hates trial lawyers."
On the February 9 edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Company, Luntz said of Edwards' decision at the time not to fire two controversial bloggers from his campaign: "We all know the phrase, 'You are judged by the company you keep.' If this is the company that John Edwards wants to keep, he may win the Democratic primary process, but most assuredly he's not going to be the next president."
Luntz said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) treatment of community activist Saul Alinsky in her senior thesis at Wellesley College on the March 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: "In the language she uses, she holds him up almost like an icon. ... I don't know how to say this, but that's like holding up some of the people from Germany in the 1930s and '40s."
Luntz said on the March 13 edition of Hannity & Colmes: "We've been analyzing her [Clinton] over the past few weeks on your show. And she doesn't seem to pick up the fact that there's too much negativity. There's too much divisiveness."
Luntz said on the October 31, 2006, edition of Hannity & Colmes: "I always use the line for [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], 'You get one shot at a facelift. If it doesn't work the first time, let it go.' "
Luntz stated during a conversation about Pelosi having access to military aircraft to fly between Washington, D.C., and her home district, on the February 7 edition of Hannity & Colmes that "it is not a security issue. [Pelosi] doesn't need a plane."
Luntz's Close Ties to Rudy Giuliani
As Media Matters has noted, Luntz has worked on Republican presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's previous three political campaigns, and has heaped praise on Giuliani this year. Giuliani could well be running against one of the participants in the Democratic presidential forum.
* * *
On the June 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Luntz said of Clinton: "[I]f she is shown to be a flip-flopper ... [t]hat will undercut her credibility immediately." He went on to say that "[w]hat the Democrats want ... is somebody who says what they mean and means what they say." Luntz predicted Clinton is "going to have a problem later on in her campaign." On the same program, Luntz falsely claimed that "[t]here's data out there that shows that the Democrats have a significant lead over the Republicans in who people want for president. But when you compare Giuliani and Hillary Clinton ... she runs behind." Co-host Alan Colmes corrected Luntz, saying: "It depends on the poll. She runs ahead in some." Indeed, several of the recent polls available at the time of Luntz's comments had Clinton either ahead or tied with Giuliani in a general election match-up.
On the June 14 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Luntz repeated the phrase, saying that "the reason why [Giuliani is] still leading right now is because the number-two attribute after someone who says what they mean and means what they say -- the number-two attribute that the American people want in a president is a leader in times of crisis." Luntz then asked: "Does that not define Rudy Giuliani?"
In an April 25 article, Variety reported that "Luntz predicted that [former Sen. John] Edwards [D-NC] will win Iowa but said the next president will be whoever shows authenticity, a person 'who says what he means and means what he says.' " Luntz was quoted as saying: "I pray that it is Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton for one reason: It will be the biggest brawl in modern political history. Every guy will be rooting for Rudy. Every woman will be rooting for Hillary. Divorce lawyers will make a mint off this election. And it will be fun to watch."
As Media Matters noted, on the March 13 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Luntz described Giuliani as "someone who defines the phrase 'Says what he means, means what he says.'"
Again, on the March 2 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Luntz criticized Sen. Clinton and said that Americans "want to look you straight in the eye and they want you to say what you mean and mean what you say and not hide anything."
On the February 10 edition of CNBC's The Tim Russert Show, when asked to explain how "[c]redibility is as important as philosophy," Luntz said: "It means that you have to genuinely say what you mean and mean what you say." Later in the show, after suggesting Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is a "flip-flop[per]," Luntz stated: "You want [politicians] to look you straight in the eye and absolutely say what you mean and mean what you say. It's why [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ] is popular, it's why Rudy Giuliani is popular, and it's why Barack Obama is popular.
In a February 4 New York Times article, in which Luntz was identified as "Mr. Giuliani's second mayoral campaign pollster," he was quoted as saying, "No one in New York, not even Ed Koch, could equal Rudy in the phrase, 'He says what he means and means what he says.'"
And on the January 19 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, Luntz was asked by host Tucker Carlson, "What kind of language should Giuliani use?" Luntz replied: "First off, I'm not advising him. I worked with him in his mayoral races, but I'm not involved in the presidential." Luntz went on to say: "Rudy doesn't use sound bites. He's the only politician in America that speaks in entire thoughts. And if you look at the transcript of what he says, it's not beautiful. But if you listen to it, he moves people."
Luntz Reprimanded & Censured by his Peers
In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research formally reprimanded Luntz for refusing to release documentation in support of comments he made to the media regarding his polling work on the Republican Party's 1994 "Contract with America" campaign platform, according to a Salon.com article.
Washington Post polling director Richard Morin reported that the National Council on Public Polls censured Luntz "for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention."
More on Luntz's History and Ties to Republican Spin
In September 2004, MSNBC dropped Luntz from its planned coverage of that year's presidential debate, following a letter from Media Matters that outlined Luntz's GOP ties and questionable polling methodology.
According to a January 29, 2007, article on The New Republic's website, Luntz "not only helped write Republican House member Newt Gingrich's Contract with America; he was also responsible for its presentation to the public." He also "advised Republicans trying to impeach Bill Clinton."
Luntz's 2002 memo "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America" coached Republicans on new ways to talk about global warming and warned the party that the environment "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general -- and President Bush in particular -- are most vulnerable."
A June 2004 memo by Luntz, "Communicating The Principles Of Prevention & Protection In The War On Terror," urged Republicans to use concepts such as "[i]t is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington" and "9/11 changed everything," which have been staples of Republican rhetoric ever since.
Statement from Neal Kendall, Executive Producer of Tavis Smiley
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Laurel Lambert <llambert@xxxxx>
Date: Jun 27, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Producer's statement on Frank Luntz on Tavis Smiley
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The following statement has been issued by Neal Kendall, executive producer of Tavis Smiley, regarding the appearance of Frank Luntz on Friday's Tavis Smiley latenight
program:
The "All American Presidential Forum on PBS" moderated by Tavis Smiley, airing this Thursday, is an unprecedented watershed event for millions of Americans who will be seeing and hearing the candidates respond to specific issues that directly affect their quality of life.
To correct some erroneous information, please note that Dr. Frank Luntz is NOT appearing on Thursday night's Presidential forum.
Dr. Frank Luntz is a guest the following-night, Friday, June 29th on Tavis' regular late-night PBS program. He will be joined by a focus group of 30 people who watched the forum the night before. This group dialed in their instant responses to the candidates' positions, using people meter technology. The primary goal of our Friday program is for Tavis to take the opportunity to converse with these 30 people and hear directly from them their thoughts and opinions on what the candidates had to say. Dr. Luntz, a consultant for many major broadcast news organizations, has appeared on our show in the past. He will discuss some of the data from the forum as part of Tavis' conversation with the focus group.
Neal Kendall
Executive Producer
"Tavis Smiley" on PBS
"The All American Presidential Forums on PBS" moderated by Tavis Smiley
Press contact: Laurel Lambert KCET 323 376 7985
Laurel Lambert
Director, Advertising and Promotion
llambert@kcet.org
323 953 5246
Original Letter from Media Matters to PBS and Tavis Smiley
Monday, June 25, 2007
Paula Kerger
President and CEO
Public Broadcasting Service
2100 Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202
Neal Kendall
Executive Producer
Tavis Smiley
4401 W. Sunset Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Dear Ms. Kerger and Mr. Kendall:
In keeping with the Public Broadcasting Service's long and distinguished history of journalistic integrity, we at Media Matters for America are writing to ask that you reconsider your network's decision to have Republican pollster Frank Luntz take part in coverage of PBS' June 28 Democratic presidential forum.
According to an April 4 PBS press release, Luntz will participate in coverage of the June 28 candidate forum, which will be televised live and moderated by PBS host Tavis Smiley. In fact, the release states that "[i]mmediate public feedback on the performance of the candidates will be conducted by noted pollster Frank Luntz, who will also appear on 'Tavis Smiley' on PBS the following evening to discuss his findings."
While we recognize the importance of analyzing the performance of the Democratic field, it is unconscionable that someone with Luntz's partisan history, open disdain for Democratic priorities and candidates, and record of reported reprimand and censure by his peers would be chosen by PBS for such an important role in a Democratic presidential primary forum.
- In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research formally reprimanded Luntz for refusing to release documentation in support of comments he made to the media regarding his polling work on the Republican Party's 1994 "Contract with America" campaign platform, according to a Salon.com article.
- Washington Post polling director Richard Morin reported that the National Council on Public Polls censured Luntz "for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention."
- In September 2004, MSNBC dropped Luntz from its planned coverage of that year's presidential debate, following a letter from Media Matters that outlined Luntz's GOP ties and questionable polling methodology.
- According to a January 29, 2007, article on The New Republic's website, Luntz "not only helped write Republican House member Newt Gingrich's Contract with America; he was also responsible for its presentation to the public." He also "advised Republicans trying to impeach Bill Clinton."
- Luntz's 2002 memo "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America" coached Republicans on new ways to talk about global warming and warned the party that the environment "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general -- and President Bush in particular -- are most vulnerable."
- A June 2004 memo by Luntz, "Communicating The Principles Of Prevention & Protection In The War On Terror," urged Republicans to use concepts such as "[i]t is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington" and "9/11 changed everything," which have been staples of Republican rhetoric ever since.
Additionally, Media Matters has documented several recent television appearances in which Luntz has spread conservative misinformation, smears of Democrats, and praise of Republicans.
- Luntz has asserted that former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) will not be elected president. In a February 24 article, the United Kingdom's Saturday Magazine quoted Luntz as saying: "America won't elect John Edwards president for the same reason we've never elected a used car salesman. America hates trial lawyers." And on the February 9 edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Company, Luntz commented on Edwards' decision at the time not to fire two controversial bloggers from his campaign, saying, "We all know the phrase 'You are judged by the company you keep.' If this is the company that John Edwards wants to keep, he may win the Democratic primary process, but most assuredly he's not going to be the next president."
- On the March 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Luntz said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) treatment of community activist Saul Alinsky in her senior thesis at Wellesley College: "In the language she uses she holds him up almost like an icon. ... I don't know how to say this, but that's like holding up some of the people from Germany in the 1930s and '40s."
- On the March 13 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Luntz said: "We've been analyzing her [Clinton] over the past few weeks on your show. And she doesn't seem to pick up the fact that there's too much negativity. There's too much divisiveness." In the same program, while discussing the abortion rights views of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), Luntz said: "This is someone who defines the phrase 'Says what he means, means what he says.' " But as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, Giuliani has taken a number of inconsistent positions on different aspects of the abortion rights issue.
- On the June 14 edition of Hannity & Colmes, discussing the June 5 Republican presidential debate, Luntz did not correct co-host Sean Hannity's claim that he was "frustrated" by purported differences between the Democratic and Republican debates: "The Democrats don't get the questions on partial-birth abortion or asked if they've read the National Intelligence Estimate [NIE]. It seems like the Republicans are getting more scrutiny." In fact, during an April 26 debate, Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) faced a question on the abortion procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion, and at a June 3 debate, Edwards and Clinton were asked whether they regretted not reading the September 2002 NIE on the threat posed by Iraq. Clinton's response to the NIE question was specifically noted by Luntz on the June 4 edition of Hannity & Colmes -- but Luntz did not point out Hannity's mistake during his June 14 appearance.
- On the October 31, 2006, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Luntz said, "I always use the line for [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], 'You get one shot at a facelift. If it doesn't work the first time, let it go.' "
- During a conversation about Pelosi having access to military aircraft to fly between Washington, D.C., and her home district, Luntz stated on the February 7 edition of Hannity & Colmes that "it is not a security issue. [Pelosi] doesn't need a plane." In fact, Wilson Livingood, the House sergeant at arms, released a statement saying that he had "advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to [former] Speaker [J. Dennis] Hastert [R-IL] for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001."
Again, we hope you will reconsider your decision to include Luntz in your debate coverage. With his well-documented Republican ties and history of being criticized and reprimanded by his peers, it's clear that he cannot be trusted to provide objective analysis of Thursday's Democratic forum. If he must be a part of PBS' lineup, we would expect that your viewers will be informed of these facts on-air.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
David Brock,
President and CEO
Media Matters for America
CC: W. Wayne Godwin, Executive Vice President & COO, PBS; Pat Hunter, Programming Senior Vice President, PBS; Sandy Heberer, Senior Director of Programming, PBS; Reed Walsh, Senior Programming Director, PBS; John Wilson, Senior Vice President & Chief TV Programming Executive, PBS; John Boland, Chief Content Officer, PBS; Lea Sloan, Communications Vice President, PBS; Linda Simensky, Programming Senior Director, PBS; Carole Chouinard, Producer, Tavis Smiley Show; Christopher McDonald, Associate Producer, Tavis Smiley Show; Tavis Smiley, Host, Tavis Smiley Show; Vanessa Smith, Producer, Tavis Smiley Show; Holly Williamson, Producer, Tavis Smiley Show; Michel Martin, Contributing Editor, NPR; Ruben Navarrette, Jr., Columnist, San Diego Union Tribune; DeWayne Wickham, Columnist, USA Today; Jim Lehrer, Executive Editor/Anchor, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
RSS Feeds
So they moved the stinkin' hack to Friday's show.
Not Good Enough...
Believe me, I'm going to remember what PBS has done here...and I'm going to spread the word.
Debunked...
If you would like some well documented ref. material on Luntz to go to for emails and arguments, etc., Sourcewatch.org has a super page on Luntz......background, contradicting statements, connections to the GOP that he has claimed don't exist, reprimands, failed projects, etc.
At best, having Luntz on the Thursday show is the epitome of sloppy producing. I mean, c'mon! They couldn't find someone with a better reputation or at least a more objective vantage point? Please.
Like so many others, I've stopped funding through contributions any PBS activities. I no longer watch their "news" or "commentary" shows (Smiley or Leher, etc.) as they are clearly unable to present sound, reasonable and thoughtful investigative pieces or discussion. Given that I also no longer (for about 12 years) watch or read corporate media, I have left Democracy Now, leftist periodicals, seminal works & research and the internet. I don't need no stinkin' right-wing propoganda to know what's happening and don't tell me I've closed my mind. It was opened a long time ago and the right-wing deserves nothing but a sneer and a jeer. There are no original thinkers nor intelligent commentators on the right. None. Just the left behinds of old fascist mentalities and simple-minded pseudo-intellectuals.
There is a silver lining
After decades of being relegated to irrelevancy, the netroots is giving progressives a voice and some power. I'm not sayin we've won anything significant yet, but we've scared hell out of the congressional Dems and PBS is responding (with a half-loaf to be sure). They are in a pretty bad position - controlled by Bush appointed wingnuts, but with a predominately progressive viewership and support base. The Republicans have been trying to abolish em for years.
Not that I am apologizing for what they have done here, I am not. I seriously doubt that they would engage someone as partisan on the left (as Luntz is on the right) to fulfill the same role for the Republican debate. Matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet on it.
It's time for PBS to recognize who their friends are. I give them credit for Moyers new program and NOW! along with occasional series like AIR (American investigative reports) that they have run recently. I have tolerated Charlie Rose and the so called "liberals" like Mark Shields on the Newshour long enough to be really POed when they do something like this. Bad enough that the Newshour feels the need to "balance" every progressive voice with a factually challenged wingnut propagandist; to permit a partisan liar like Luntz to spin the Democratic debate is unconscionable. Bet they don't have the nerve to let him go on as a neutral expert now.
Bad enough that the Newshour feels the need to "balance" every progressive voice with a factually challenged wingnut propagandist
From the lefty's own typewriter:
"balance" = "bad"
It's still a riot to me that David Brock can call anyone else "discredited". Does he have any idea what people in DC think of him?
Max,
Oh! my little wingnut. David Brock doesn't give two dog craps what the elite corporate beltway pundits think of him.
He exposes hacks; he exposes lies; he exposes spin and bias. Of course the beltway pundits are terrified of him.
Debunked,
You're pretty naive. Brock would do anything to be on Meet the Depressed with Russert, but it'll never happen. To claim he doesn't care is just sophistry.
And the point of the post was that to your fellow lefty, balance is "bad".
No wonder the left is terrified of FNC.
No, balance is good. Reasoned debate (a concept I sincerely doubt you comprehend) is a positive thing. It educates and informs. I was referring to factually challenged trolls like yourself that contribute nothing but heat, insults and confusion.
We do occasionally get dissenting voices on this site who actually understand this concept. Hang around, you might learn something.
First you said balance is "bad", and now that you've been called on this bit of idiocy, balance is suddenly "good".
Your lack of credibility is not my fault.
Those are your words.
No. I said phony "balance" with quotation marks is bad. True balance is good. Are you really that stupid, or do you just have a problem with comprehension?
Probably the latter - else you wouldn't be a wingnut troll.
PS
But I thank you sincerely for the apt illustration of "balance."
Frank Luntz is the Joseph Goebbels of corporate fascism in America.
He should be on the Comedy Channel with Stewart and Colbert.
Wasn't the new COO, Wayne Godwin, appointed by BushCo?
Is Tavis Smiley a corporate stooge?
If Smiley sticks with Frank Luntz, the Dems should refuse to perform on the PBS political entertainment show.
Just like they did with POX news.
Good point Uneasy...
It's a process. We should be proud that the infrastructure is in place--with the leadership of David Brock--to strike back against this media sewer.
This is another important victory. But it's not the total victory that we deserve--but we will get.
As you say, it's sad to see PBS reduced to this. It's amazing that PBS has reduced themselves to this?
I'm a 55 year old registered Republican. I like what Brock and the folks at Media Matters are doing. I read this site everyday.
Since we're giving opinions, I think most people on the right seem able only to scratch the surface of a problem before they come to a "cure" to the problem. They can't look further than page one or as far back as last year.
Deep analysis of a problem or situation is beyond their grasp. I don't know if it's that they are too ignorant or just too lazy to spend the time in doing the work of problem solving.
One thing we all have to remember is that we are all ignorant, just on different subjects. Right and left.
Thanks for posting. We should all be willing to re-cast our opinions and try to find the truth of the matter. I also read Media Matters often (every day recently) and appreciate their work.
I hope you will post again and if you disagree with the tenor of a thread, we could have an honest discussion of our differences.
I guess PBS is trying to attrack the FOX crowd. Sad.
As a midddle of the road Republican, I am always very concerned about people who mislead Americans especially those who do so in the name of news or so called public evidence. To bring to the front someone providing us public opinions yet so evidently biased is a necessary organization and appreciated. I know my own opinions and the opinions of the majority do not influence me but positive evidence to the contrary does make a difference.
cew2087
Artharvath & Cew:
I appreciate your posts. I'm sure its shared on site. Please weigh in again, if possible for a longer conversation.
PROPAGANDA ALERT!!
Tavis Smiley was just on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! program on Los Angeles KPFK 90.7 FM wherein Goodman asked him about the Media Matters and Daivid Brock's criticism of Frank Luntz participating in the forum as polling interpreter. SMILEY INFERRED THAT BROCK IS A LIAR AND NEVER ONCE MENTIONED LUNTZ'S PARTISAN ACTIVITIES FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. You can read the entire transcript of the interview at democracynow.org
TAVIS SMILEY HAS PUBLICLY CALLED DAVID BROCK A LIAR DURING THIS MORNING'S DEMOCRACY NOW! broadcast with Amy Goodman! Here is the link! His accusation is near the very end of the interview. The Democrats attending this "forum" are walking into an ambush. They will be sandbagged by Luntz and Smiley.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/28/1433235
TAVIS SMILEY "I have wasted three minutes of your good television time responding to something that is, quite frankly, nonsensical, it is erroneous, it’s absolutely not true. PBS put out a statement on Wednesday addressing those issues. I think that when people put lies out, you’ve got to respond to them quickly. With all due respect to Mr. Brock, he got this one wrong."
TAVIS SMILEY IS CALLING DAVID BROCK A LIAR. The PBS forum is rigged with a Republican propagandist.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/28/1433235
This man (moron) just called David Brock a liar.
This stupid, ignorant, PBS corporate nitwit just called David Brock a liar!!
I urge all Democrats out there to discontinue any funding for PBS. They're worthless.
Yeah - it begs the question "What was the lie?"
Name it, Smiley.
I contacted PBS and expressed my concern of having this loud mouth pompous ass as a commentator during and after the Democratic Debate. There response is so asinine that I wonder if they understood my concerns. This guy is not a non-biased journalist, but rather a paid spokes pig for the party of idiots (republicans). Can anyone explain to PBS how stupid they are in choosing Dr. (Dr?) Luntz.
Tom
PBS RESPONSE
Thank you for contacting PBS. We greatly appreciate your interest in our programming. Like you, PBS recognizes the importance of an informed and engaged citizenry. The "All-American Presidential Forums," which are moderated by Tavis Smiley, is an historic broadcast marking the first time that a panel exclusively comprised of journalists of color will be represented in primetime. Mr. Smiley, along with journalists Michel Martin of National Public Radio, nationally syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. and USA Today and Gannett News Service columnist DeWayne Wickham, will question candidates on issues ranging from healthcare and housing to Katrina relief, the economy and the environment, among others. PBS is proud to offer a live broadcast of this event, which is the first major opportunity for the candidates to present a detailed discourse and dialogue on their social agendas. Regarding your concerns about Dr. Luntz, I would like to clarify that he is not participating in the forum itself or in the live broadcast of the event. Rather, Dr. Luntz was selected by Mr. Smiley to obtain on-the-spot feedback from a group of everyday citizens who will be watching the forum live at Howard University. Dr. Luntz will appear as a guest on Mr. Smiley's regularly scheduled program on Friday evening, accompanied by the 30 people who participated in the Instant Response focus group to discuss the results of the study. We have full confidence in Mr. Smiley's abilities to produce an intelligent, thought-provoking program and in his skills as an interviewer. I hope you will watch the "All-American Forum" this evening and tune into the second forum for Republican candidates, which is scheduled to air in September. Sincerely, PBS Viewer ServicesYeah, I got this e-mail too Thomas,
Doesn't even deal with the problem that David Brock is raising.
It seems PBS' only goal is to further embarrass themselves.
Out of curiosity, do either one of you know any particulars about the upcoming Republican forum in September?
It would be interesting to see who is moderating it and who, if anyone, is conducting a focus group study.
I can't think of any pollster who is so blatantly also political strategist from the left.
Maybe Terry Gross could moderate it, maybe an all female panel of moderators could do it. Imagine Terry Gross, Arianna Huffington, Gwynn Eiffel and maybe Amy Goodman or Rachel Maddow or Randi Rhodes asking the good ole boys club about reproduction rights, family leave, wage equalty and healthcare! How fast would those chuckle heads run away from those mean girls?
Ruben Navarette and Tavis Smiley are both corporate stooges.
Syndicated right wing columnist Ruben Navarette wrote a piece claiming Gonzales is being picked on by bigoted Democrats because he's Hispanic.
The Dem candidates would be nuts to perform on the PBS political entertainment show.
The Dems should pull out of this right wing circus.
I'm not gonna watch it.
Yeah JustInTime...
I know Navarette is a right-wing stooge. We get his rubbish here in our local paper quite regularly.
He strikes me as one who just tries to fill up some space with right-wing claptrap to get his paycheck.
Thanks for that info on Navarette, J. I got the same letter and noticed that it referred to "Dr. Luntz" three times. I took that as an attempt to legitimize him.
Have to admit that I know nothing about the other hosts - anybody have info?
Just reviewed. In the original announcement, he was "noted pollster Frank Luntz." Now he's Dr Luntz.
Wonder what Luntz will ask his subjects: "Did Hillary look more shrill tonight?"
I am sure other people have said this but....
If Luntz isn't unbiased (which appears he is not) he has no business on PBS. I give a lot of money to PBS each year with the idea I AM getting unbiased shows. Reading this is like a needle in my heart.