ALERT: PBS Selects Luntz for Democratic forum analysis...
Email from David Brock, June 25, 2007.
Dear Friend:
I'm sure you've already heard that PBS will be hosting the next Democratic presidential forum on Thursday, June 28, at Howard University in Washington, D.C. What you may not know is that PBS has invited Frank Luntz, a longtime Republican pollster and strategist, to provide "immediate public feedback on the performances of the candidates" during post-forum coverage on the Tavis Smiley program.
Of course, when Luntz's appearance was announced, the press release made no mention of his Republican ties or long history of being criticized for his work.
If you don't know much about Frank Luntz, here are some important facts about this discredited Republican pollster:
- 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 coverage, 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 "It 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.
With his well-documented Republican ties and history of being criticized and reprimanded by his peers, it's clear that Frank Luntz cannot be trusted to provide objective analysis of Thursday's forum.
Today, I'm asking you to contact PBS and let the organization know that it should reconsider its decision to use Luntz in light of his partisan Republican ties and history of questionable scientific methodology. If Luntz must be a part of PBS post-forum coverage, let it know you expect that its viewers will be informed of these facts on the air.
Sincerely,
David Brock,
President & CEO
Media Matters for America
The slow destruction of old fashioned American fairness and democracy has been replaced by what can now reasonably be characterized as a movement toward a Fascist state where the perversion of fact and the lack of even a semblance of intelligent critical thinking (as opposed to propaganda) predominates. PBS has gone from excellent to mediocre to subject to serious questioning over the last couple couple of decades as the people of certainty (aka Republican-Christian Right) have been allowed such influence by a nation of sheep. We have to get off of our tolerant rumps ad scream to the high heavens and to those who fear numbers. Let's give them numbers. Let's all raise hell about this.
RPM
This is alarmist rhetoric, but some may be justified in this case. Mr. Luntz is a singularly aggressive and agenda-driven partisan for the right wing. Mr. Luntz's track record conclusively guarantees that his "analysis" will seek to subvert the legitimacy of Democratic policy positions and the character of candidates who advance them, while wrongfully implying that Republicans always own the moral high ground. Keep this man away from the forum, please.
First - How many commentators will there be? If it is just one then this is very onerous.
Second - even disclosure many times does not give the true characteristics of the person. Being a Republican campaign strategist (a disclosure) is different than the architect and purveyor of misleading "scientific data" (another disclosure - probably would never be given). In my opinion it is best Luntz not be part of it.
I'd much rather see Mary Matlin and James Carvil on together. That way people know what they are getting.
What is going on over at PBS & the Tavis Smiley Show?
Will they be hosting a Republican Forum with a blow by blow by Howard Zinn? I hope so. If not, how much money did it take to sway the show to put a spin-meister right-wing hit-man to poison the discussion?
This insidious spinmeister has no place in any reasoned, objective discussion. Hell, most of the information about Luntz is on the PBS website! Why are they using this hack?
Again, they're using this hack because Goebbels couldn't make it.
Just the lastest in PBS', particularly NewsHour's fall from excellence to complicity in the degradation of media excellence and independence.
Urge all to write to PBS directly, let them know you know the difference between independent journalism, public broadcasting and sham news, biased analysis.
Sounds like Betrayal of the Public.
I am disapointed to learn about PBS' selection of Frank Luntz. He is a charleton with a charming smile. I participated in 2 of his "so-called" focus groups sponsored by MSNBC just before the Iraq war. It was shocking to see his blatent manipulation of the group to further his own ultra-conservative agenda that included support for invading Iraq. Off camera he harranged and belittled those who disagreed with his views. This man is cunning and intellectually dishonest. PBS should be ashamed to pay and promote such a person.
I remember watching one of those that was televised. It was obvious right away that Luntz would get a response he didn't want to hear, and then would proceed to ignore the speaker during the rest of the segment. Were you the woman who was visibly upset, who kept rolling her eyes at the blatant favoritism and manipulation?
One member of the group stood out as being completely aware of what was going on, and they weren't happy about it. That was my first tip-off that something was fishy about the whole thing.
Access and display pictures of Luntz with that day-glow orange hair of yore.
He's an idiot.
Just another Republican idiot.
Why not have Cheney or Geo. W. Bush to give the feedback? It makes as much sense as having Luntz.
It would be nice if someone neutral could be found to do the job instead.
Why not have Cheney or Geo. W. Bush to give the feedback? It makes as much sense as having Luntz.
It would be nice if someone neutral could be found to do the job instead. But why ask someone who has an axe to grind?
Doesn't anyone use "fair and balance" for real?
What in the world happened to PBS? I loved the way it used to be.
I find it ironic that Liberals don't even notice when their partisan hacks are on TV b/c it is so mainstream.
Take a look at George Stephanopoulos or Chris Mathews.
Stephanopoulos was Clinton's Press Secretary and Mathews was Tip O'Neals Cheif of Staff.
Could anyone image if Bush's Press Secretary and Scooter Libby had their own TV shows??
Media Matters would have a year-long campaign against them.
But, that is exactly what conservatives deal with on a daily basis.
I find it ironic that, while you note the political histories of Stephanapolous and Mathews, you make no mention of any objectionable statements or behavior from either of them. in fact, Stephanapolous is generally regarded as very fair and a credible show host, and Mathews has become another right-wing media figure, as ample evidence collected on thsi site makes clear.
In short, where Media Matters actually criticizes actions and statements of someone, you find a political past reason enough to dismiss their trustworthiness. Media Matters didn't simply say that Luntz is untrustworthy as a commentator because he has worked for Republican campaigns in the past; they cited specific instances of professional reprimands and dishonesty that raise red flags.
COPIOUS:
Bush's Press Secretary DOES have his own TV show. It's called "the Daily Briefing". And to make matters better, he's a PUNDIT turned Political operative!
Libby's TV show was called, "LIAR LIAR", with Libby shown walking in and out of courtrooms. The show, and Libby's future, were alas cancelled.
As to Republicans-as-pundits getting "their own show" for facetime, it's not necessary. Guys like Pat Buchanan and other ex-GOP administration employees get easily more face time on the tube than ANY national anchor.
And former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough has his own show on MSNBC. Pat Buchanan has been on-again, off-again presence on radio and a staple on CNN. Convicted felon and GOP operative Oliver North has his own radio show. That list goes on and on.
If one former political hack and one former political hack now turned right-wing apologist is what conservatives have to live with every day, they have a pretty good life.
So a left winger like Chris Matthews can moderate a Republican debate, but Luntz cannot provide feedback after a Democrat debate? The moonbats at MMFA get nuttier every day.
IF CHRIS MATTHEWS IS A LEFT WINGER THAN THE KOOL-AID DRINKING KEVIN MUST THINK THAT ANN COULTER IS A CENTRIST. FACE IT, THIS THE WORST ADMINISTRATION IN THE LAST EIGHTY YEARS AND VERY POSSIBLE OF ALL TIME.
When you type something like this: "So a left winger like Chris Matthews", one has to wonder whether you are actually paying attention or are just living in an alternate universe.
If you had bothered to watch Chris Matthews over the past 5-6 years, you would know he has a fetish with manly Republican men and questions wether someone can be President on the sole basis that she is a woman.
He wears his hero worship of Rudy Guliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mitt Romney on his sleave.
While Chris Matthews has criticized the neoconservative influence on this White House, he is a far cry from a "left winger".
Then again, the conservative movement has shifted so far to the right over the past 10 years, they probably would now consider Frank Luntz "left wing".
I am ashamed of how PBS has become so much like FOX. Not being a fan of Luntz but finding he had Luntz.Com I addressed an email to Frank@ and it got to him. He is not a nice person, but you can tell him.
I'm not thrilled about the direction PBS has taken over the past 5-6 years; however, equating it or even comparing it to Fox News is a bit much.
PBS is airing Bill Moyers Journal and Frontline, programs Fox would never dare air. In addition, the level of art and culture offered by PBS far outshines the bitter partisan droll of FNC.
I understand the concern with PBS's decision to bring a discredited partisan Republican hack to comment on the Democratic presidential forum; however, this doesn't deserve the amount of drama it is getting.
It's PBS for God's sake. People who regularly watch PBS already know what a fraud and a spinmeister Frank Luntz is. If PBS can trick a few careless wingnuts to switch from FNC to watch public broadcasting for a couple of hours, the better off we'll all be.
I won't watch if Luntz is on. He acts nonbiased but definitely is a Republican operative. Come on and throw us non-Republicans a break ... put on one of ours. Our country is in so much trouble because of you media folks.
I emailed PBS and suggested that they get James Carvil to do commentary when they host the Republican debate. We all know that ain't gonna happen.
In response to an earlier post that suggested getting Carvil and Matlin together, it appears to me that Matlin carries the family jewels in her purse. When I have seen them together, she interrupted him constantly and he listened respectfully. If you contrast how effective a progressive attack dog he was before this strange bedfellows marriage and what he is like now - no comparison.
His personal life is his own business, of course. I simply wish that he was not burdened with Matlin whenever he appears publicly. Let her do her own thing, don't provide her with a forum. He usually can barely get a word in edgeways and is nowhere nearly as effective.
Who in the world is pulling the strings at PBS lately? First a right wing revisionist history of our country being founded as a 'Christian' country and putting it out as a documentary, and now having one of the top left wing spin meisters of all time doing the feedback for the democratic debate. The same guy that was dropped from MSNBC's coverage of the 2004 presidential debate because he had GOP ties and questionable polling strategies? Oh come on PBS; you can do better!
This man does NOT represent the values of America.
Done.....U sold out.....what the hell we're you thinking???????????
I learned that one of my favorite bloghers - Professor Kim - was planning to attend the event and I mentioned to her the fact that i feel that FOX is coming in the backdoor to the Democratic presidential forum since they couldn't get the candidates to come in the front door.
She posted an article about this on her website, so we're starting to spread the word.
If you are going to select a commenator that has a bias point of view then at least let the public know. It crates a air of mistrust for your program.