PBS to use "noted pollster" Luntz for presidential forum, despite GOP ties and reported reprimands
According to an April 4 press release, Republican pollster Frank Luntz will participate in the Public Broadcasting Service's coverage of the June 28 Democratic presidential forum, which will be televised live and moderated by PBS host Tavis Smiley: "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." Fellow pollsters have criticized Luntz, a longtime Republican strategist, for mischaracterizing the results of his research, as Media Matters for America has noted. The PBS press release does not mention Luntz's Republican ties, repeating a pattern in the media identified by Media Matters.
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. Four years later, he 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 since.
As Media Matters has documented, Luntz's credibility has been a recurring issue. In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research reprimanded Luntz for comments he made to the media regarding his polling work on the Contract with America, according to a 2000 Salon.com article. Similarly, Washington Post polling director Richard Morin reported in 2000 that the National Council on Public Polls "censured pollster Frank Luntz for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention."
On the June 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, discussing the June 5 Republican presidential debate with Luntz, co-host Sean Hannity claimed to be "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, the Democratic presidential candidates faced a question on the abortion procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion, and at a June 3 debate, several Democratic candidates were asked whether they regretted not reading the September 2002 NIE on the threat posed by Iraq. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) response to the NIE question was specifically noted by Luntz on Hannity & Colmes June 4 -- but Luntz did not point out Hannity's mistake during his June 14 appearance.
In September 2004, MSNBC dropped its plans to include Luntz in coverage of that year's presidential debate following a letter from Media Matters that outlined Luntz's GOP ties and questionable polling methodology.
well, he is noted, a noted republican.
I never really got what "noted" is supposed to mean. Noticed? Like, we noticed you, Luntz. Notorious? Noteworthy?
Noted--as in B-flat. He speaks in the key of F.
Let me know when Media Matters complains about yet another CBS/NYT or Newsweek poll in which Democrats are so heavily over-sampled that a 15-year-old social studies student wouldn't make the same mistake.
And by the way, complaining about anything even remotely GOP-related on PBS is like complaining about pro-Bush programming on Al Jazeera. Get over it, you won't see it again for quite some time.
Ken Tomlinson was forced to resign from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because he dared suggest that our tax dollars be used to create balanced programming at PBS.
The closed-minded sheep got nervous, saying essentially "we have McLaughlin, 30 minutes a week, and that's all you get", and ran Tomlinson off.
Until you post some backup to your sweeping accusations, others will justifiably conclude that you are talking out your ass.
Welcome, Max!
I didn't even come close to accusing anyone of anything, I merely mentioned a few well known facts about Tomlinson's brief tenure at CPB/PBS, and made the obvious observation that PBS isn't exactly a bastion of conservatism.
For you to mention my "accusations", plural, when there isn't even one, lol, makes your remark that I'm "talking out of my ass" sound as though you're talking about the person in your mirror.
You are used to that kind of reply I'm sure.
(By the way, if by "accusations", you mean "things I've never heard about so I'll pretend you're making them up", that's not only a false "accusation", but a rather pitiful one at that....your ignorance is your problem, not mine.)
Democrats aren't oversampled. There are fewer Republicans than there were before, so more Democrats are counted than Republicans now.
"Noted" is a shortcut term for "accomplished" or "credible" I believe.
No, just well-known by reputation. (Webster)
Duly noted.
It's important to understand that Luntz's partisanship completely informs his "opinion" and also his "findings".
During the run-up to the Clinton Impeachment, Luntz encouraged Republicans to exploit Bill Clinton's sexual dalliances.
When the GOP took over Congress in 1994, Luntz saw Medicare as a potential problem for his GOP legislators. "Go on the attack," he advised the new Republican House, "Accuse Democrats of using 'scare tactics' by allowing the program to go broke."
Ah, but the political dynamic shifted in 2006, giving the Democrats majority control of both houses of Congress. What was Luntz to do? Keep advising ATTACK politics, going negative, exploiting divisions and finding wedge issue?
No sir. With Democrats in charge, Luntz had completely DIFFERENT advice. He says sagely, "Democracy is at its best when its practioners use language to unite and explain rather than divide and attack."
So, Luntz is self described as promoting "Democracy at its WORST" ... or is just another hypocritical partisan whose every word is uttered to promote the rightwing, and to damage the leftwing. Such a partisan, allowed to "analyze" ANYTHING, should be forced to wear a sandwich sign that says, "Everything I Say Is Rightwing Spin!"
Left is right, up is down.
Somehow the Congress passing a bill that funds our soldiers and Bush vetoing that legislation is Congress not funding the troops.
Somehow Delay being really smart, and mostly keeping his name off his dirty tricks, but still getting indicted, is merely him being investigating. Jefferson, on the other hand, is too stupid to not accept bribery money in a sting operation, and he's indicted and that's what the media reports it as.
Luntz is not a fair person based upon the evidence, yet PBS is looking to use him. This is wrong.
PBS needs to explain this
When PBS is forced to explain why our tax dollars are used to put on programming that is 90% liberal, then you can worry about Frank Luntz.
Hypocrites galore around here. Liberal bias is ok all day long at PBS, but a GOP pollster at PBS? That's just criminal.
Oh, the documentary on Islam that PBS didn't have the guts to show because it made those intolerant, gutless liberals nervous, will be shown on Fox this weekend.
None of you will watch, lol. The NYT told you all you need to know...terrorists are our friends if we'd only be nice to them.
When you can back up your claim that PBS is ninety percent liberal get back to us. If you define liberal as not conforming to bloodlust to get as many Americans killed as possible like the ignorant, heartless, braindead rightwing wants it doesnt count.
PBS has produced plenty of documentaries that discuss the dangers of terrorism and radical Islam. What exactly are you on?
I wish I could find the link, but I know there was a multi-part series that had a few episodes dedicated to radical Islamic and Europe's "Islamicization".
At least, if this happens, maybe Tavis will be able to keep Luntz in check.
I just sent an email to PBS and mentioned the censor. I also mentioned that if Mr. Luntz appears during this event I will be disinclined to pledge the next time their's a fundraiser.
Unfortunately.. that's exactly what the right-wingers in power want. Their goal is to cut off funding for PBS, put their cronies in power of PBS and then watch support dwindle. Next thing you know, PBS will be running Pfizer and Chevron commercials during "Theocracy Now! with Ann Coulter".
While Luntz is a Republican, he is also one of the most knowledgeable people in America about conveying messages to people. If the democrats were smart, I would certainly listen to what he has to say.
Moreover, he knows the strengths and weaknesses of the Democrat as well as the Republican party.
He gave a very honest debate on Bill Maher about 4 weeks ago. I suggest you all check it out.
Didn't you mean Democratic?
Another example of the deceitful renaming they do.
Partial birth abortion instead on Intact Dilation and Extraction.
Democrat Party and Democrat initiatives instead of Democratic Party and Democratic initiatives.
Pro Abortion instead of Pro Choice.
"Moreover, he knows the strengths and weaknesses of the Democrat as well as the Republican party.
He gave a very honest debate on Bill Maher about 4 weeks ago. I suggest you all check it out." - C.B.C
You could be correct, I don't know. However, most people hereabouts might tend to think that anyone capable of believing there is a "Democrat" party wouldn't recognize an honest debate if it mugged them in the street.
Luntz in no dunce. He's worse. He's deceitful. He's a used car salesman pitching a previously totaled vehicle as having an "extraordinary service record." I'm writing PBS.
I don't think Frank Luntz has the Democratic party's best interest at heart when he's so generously handing out advice.
The legal term for requiring a fair approach is to require a "good faith effort".
Does Luntz approach the Democrats with "good faith"? He demonstrably does NOT. He has BAD faith, and his every action is calculated to harm the Dems while promoting the GOP. If he conducts polls, focus groups, interviews, or word analysis, one thing is certain: He does it as a Rightwing Partisan with many axes to grind.
He has no business participating in "analysis" unless it is clearly labeled as the rightwing SPIN on the events.
That's a load of crap. I saw that episode of Real Time and Luntz showed his a$$. He spent half his time trying to lecture the left for being "so bitter". Why is the right always so interested in keeping everyone so compliant? Are they afraid of an angry and informed populace? They should be. He had absolutely nothing of value to say.
You mean the DemocraIC as well as ReNAMBLAcan pary dont you?
Moreover, he knows the strengths and weaknesses of the Democrat as well as the Republican party.
1. What is the "Democrat" party?
2. While your point may be valid that Luntz is knowledgeable and worth listening to, the criticism aimed at PBS in this article is also valid. The point of the article is that PBS failed to disclose Luntz' background and affiliations, not whether he is knowledgeable.
Sadly, Tavis is neither adept nor canny enough to counter an experienced propagandist like Luntz. This is the same Tavis Smiley who once interviewed the head of the creationist Discovery Institute, yet clearly knew nothing about evolution, and said "I take your point" when the DI guy (who had NO countering guest to balance him) insisted that evolution and natural selection were very controversial and unresolved. Tavis is just not that smart, from what I've seen, despite his good-natured charisma and charm. Luntz will eat his lunch.
I hope PBS watched the floor of the House yesterday when Stoyer spat out Luntz's name as he accused the Republicans of parroting Luntz's deceiving propaganda/phrasings. Sad that PBS has a programmer/producer that doesn't seem to know who these characters are ... ie: Melanie Morgan on the Lehrer show.
I don't believe for a minute that the PBS programmer/producer doesn't know who these characters are! On the contrary, I think Sasami (above) was right when commenting on someone cutting off support for PBS to show dissatisfaction:
"Unfortunately.. that's exactly what the right-wingers in power want. Their goal is to cut off funding for PBS, put their cronies in power of PBS and then watch support dwindle. Next thing you know, PBS will be running Pfizer and Chevron commercials during "Theocracy Now! with Ann Coulter"."
I assume everyone has noticed that PBS--on TV or on radio w/NPR--is no longer a place where one can count on getting unbiased news.
Personally, I got fed up with PBS right after the 2004 election when they didn’t report on the Ohio debacle, and I wrote just the letter Sasami warns against in his/her comment. I decided I’d rather put my money toward a monthly satellite TV bill than contribute to PBS. Now, I know what I'm watching is HONEST: Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! are, IMHO, the best sources of TV news. And, on radio or internet, Thom Hartmann and Rachel Maddow so good (brilliant, in fact) that I (almost) don’t mind suffering through the commercials!
Wolfbato...they know exactly who they have on and what their agenda is...PBS is being coopted by the Right (as is the rest of the media). The right figured it out a long time ago. He who controls the media controls the message...its been practiced with great skill by the right since Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebles so skillfully articulated what is required of good propaganda skills
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over" -- Joseph Goebbels"It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them." -- Adolf HitlerThe same pundits who have been actively working to hurt democracy, trotted out again and again on the television. No consequences for their lies and their ignorance. Luntz seems to be trying to reframe himself now.
I saw this guy on MSNBC doing the same nonsense after the 2000 presidential debates. Matthews couldn't stop gushin over him. Naturally, he saw in the group a groundswell for you know who. PBS has got to lose this guy.
Luntz would probably be a good choice in a General Election debate, or even a GOP debate. However, I'm not sure just how his clearly biased viewpoint is going to work out in a DNC debate.
PBS, however, is supposed to be community based, and the majority of PBS viewers and supporters will have a problem not just with the choice of Luntz, who lacks credibility, but PBS's intentional attempt to hide Luntz's biases and present him aas some sort of actual journalist without biases (the reason for Media Matters' pointing him out).
Oh well, PBS stopped being for the public years ago, which is why I don't support them anymore.
While Luntz is a Republican, he is also one of the most knowledgeable people in America about conveying messages to people. If the democrats were smart, I would certainly listen to what he has to say.
Moreover, he knows the strengths and weaknesses of the Democrat as well as the Republican party.
He gave a very honest debate on Bill Maher about 4 weeks ago. I suggest you all check it out. - copiousdissent.blogspot.com
Wrong, wrong & wrong.
I also saw Luntz on Bill Maher. He couldn't even hold his own against Paula Poundstone.
I remember Luntz defending his career as a pundit by saying that he no longer worked for the GOP and had become neutral. Then I saw him working for the GOP again. His work for the GOP never stopped. Luntz is dedicated to the GOP and any media outlet that portrays Luntz as a neutral expert is committing fraud.
Speaing of right-wing tools, WHEN is there going to be a real look and analysis of the vitriol spewed by GLEN BECK and Lou Dobbs over MY tax-supported public airways? CNN, like the other networks EXISTS due in great part to our U.S. tax base, which I resent going toward supporting slander and out-and-out lies. Nancy Grace may eventually fall to lawsuits since she chips away at sometimes-unaware "common citizens," but the former twosome are allowed to get away with outrageous deceptions which taint Americans' understanding of our Government, merely because their targets are "public figures" and in Dobbs' case, people having to live under the radar in order to survive. To quote David Bowie: "This is not America, Oh No!"
Fair and balanced is a wolf and a wolf with a sheep skin on it's back.