About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Luntz -- PBS' pick to survey public response after Democratic forum -- was longtime Giuliani pollster

June 25, 2007 8:19 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The audio for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a MP3 version of the audio.

26 Comments

As Media Matters for America has noted, Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who the Public Broadcasting Service has announced will provide "public feedback" following PBS' coverage of the June 28 Democratic presidential forum, has shown open disdain for Democratic priorities and candidates and has reportedly been reprimanded and censured by his peers for withholding and misrepresenting polling data and methodology. But, in addition to leaving out these facts from its press release announcing Luntz's participation, PBS, which referred to Luntz only as a "noted pollster," made no mention of the fact that Luntz has worked for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a potential general election opponent of one of the forum's participants, and has heaped praise on Giuliani this year. On the February 7 edition of PBS' Tavis Smiley, after referring to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as the "[b]est communicator out there," Luntz said: "Giuliani, it's about results and success. ... [T]his is a guy who took a city that was on its knees and brought it back to its feet. You can now take your kids there. You can hang out on Times Square at 11 p.m. on a Friday night and not be afraid." Luntz concluded: "Imagine if you could do that for New York, what he could do for America"

Luntz worked for Giuliani during each of Giuliani's three previous political campaigns: his campaign for New York City mayor in 1993, re-election bid in 1997, and aborted campaign for U.S. Senate in 2000. On the second page of the introduction to his book, Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear (Hyperion, January 2007), Luntz describes himself as "[t]he man who worked for Rudy Giuliani, two-time Republican mayor of a city where Democratic voters outnumbered Republicans 5-to-1 (xii)."

In his book, Luntz repeated phrases he had poll-tested in praising Giuliani. For instance, on Page 90, Luntz wrote that the polling he conducted in 2000 during Giuliani's bid for a Senate seat indicated that Giuliani's "personal story and record of accomplishment trumped his political philosophy and where he stood on the issues." Luntz then provided a "capsule biography of Rudy," which he claimed "poll-tested through the political stratosphere." After providing Giuliani's biographical information and accomplishments as mayor, the capsule read: "Today, Rudy is motivated by the same things he learned as a child ... hard work, telling it like it is, a sense of responsibility to community and country, his belief in people, and the power of faith."

During his televised guest appearances, Luntz has repeatedly described Giuliani as "someone who means what he says and says what he means" and criticized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and other Democrats:

  • 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 possible general election match-up. A June 15-17 Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll had Clinton and Giuliani tied at 42 percent, but in a June 11-14 Gallup poll, Clinton led Giuliani 50-46 percent. In a June 8-11 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Clinton was ahead of Giuliani 48-43.
  • 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."

Further, in his book, Luntz wrote that "in 1993, when I was working for Rudy Giuliani in his first successful campaign for mayor of New York, I pressed for him to talk about 'public safety' rather than 'crime' and 'criminals.' " Luntz added, "[I]n the polling I did with the voters of New York, I discovered that the public placed a higher priority on 'personal and public safety' than on 'fighting crime' or even 'getting tough on criminals' " (Page 178). During interviews this year, Luntz pushed this notion of "public safety." In his February 7 interview on Tavis Smiley, speaking about what he characterized as Giuliani's accomplishments in New York City, Luntz said: "You can hang out on Times Square at 11:00 PM on a Friday night and not be afraid. New York's a different place." Similarly, in his January 19 appearance on Tucker, in his praise for Giuliani, Luntz said: "And I've got to tell you, it's not just 9-11 that has an impact. It's what happened in Times Square; what happened in 42nd Street."

In a September 24, 2000, article about the 2000 New York U.S. Senate race, The New York Observer reported that while working for Giuliani, Luntz "convened focus groups in part to gauge how these various political personas were received in Mrs. Clinton's new home state." From the article:

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, for one, was fully aware of the perils of running against Hillary the Martyr. When Mr. Giuliani was gearing up to run against Mrs. Clinton in 1999, his top advisers -- including Adam Goodman, his media adviser, and Rick Wilson, his chief strategist -- spent a year studying the First Lady's career and compiled a detailed analysis of the roles she had played in politics through the years. Frank Luntz, Mr. Giuliani's pollster, convened focus groups in part to gauge how these various political personas were received in Mrs. Clinton's new home state.

From the June 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): Here's my question to you, though.

LUNTZ: Yeah.

HANNITY: Now, we've got -- one year ago, she said no timetables before the same group she spoke to today. Then she goes to timetables, to cutting off funding for the troops.

LUNTZ: Good points.

HANNITY: The ads that can be built around her position seem to me ideal for a Republican candidate.

LUNTZ: And for her, if she's shown to be a flip-flopper -- Hillary Clinton, a flip-flopper --

HANNITY: Hillary Clinton -- big time.

LUNTZ: -- that will undercut her credibility immediately.

COLMES: Frank --

LUNTZ: What Democrats want from somebody is somebody who says what they mean and means what they say.

HANNITY: Right.

LUNTZ: She's going to have a problem later on in her campaign.

COLMES: I keep hearing people like you come on and talk about how big her negatives are and the flip-flopping and --

LUNTZ: It's not people like me. You see it in the polling.

COLMES: -- and yet -- but time -- but her ratings keep increasing. She keeps getting a bigger lead over Barack Obama.

LUNTZ: Among the leftists --

COLMES: She keeps doing better and better as time goes on, not worse and worse.

LUNTZ: Because it's the Democratic Party. But here's what's interesting: There'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 -- actual names --

COLMES: All right, let's hear something about Giuliani.

LUNTZ: -- she runs behind.

COLMES: It depends on the poll. She runs ahead in some.

From the June 14 edition of Hannity & Colmes:

LUNTZ: I'm a language guy. I'm not going to let you drag me into that kind of policy, but I will say this again: I know something about that period. [President] Clinton had plenty of opportunities to get rid of [Osama] bin Laden, and he didn't do it.

COLMES: Well, he had [inaudible]. He didn't do it, because he couldn't do it. We've argued this many times on this show; he didn't have the opportunity to do it. Let me show you --

LUNTZ: But what did Rudy Giuliani do? He talked about leadership. The reason why he's still leading right now is because the number-two attribute after somebody 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. Does that not define Rudy Giuliani?

COLMES: No, not to me -- but now -- but some people, maybe it does. But let me show you what Fred Thompson --

LUNTZ: Most people it does.

From the March 2 edition of Hannity & Colmes:

COLMES: Where's the problem for Hillary here?

LUNTZ: The problem is that the American people want you -- as I am with you right now -- they 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.

This is someone who consistently -- you heard me in the program earlier this week -- praised John Edwards' language --

COLMES: Yep.

LUNTZ: -- praised Barack Obama's language.

COLMES: Yep. Hey Frank --

LUNTZ: But Hillary Clinton -- her language is inconsistent. It has always been because she's not honest with the American people about where she stands.

From the February 10 edition of CNBC's The Tim Russert Show:

TIM RUSSERT (host): Short words, short sentences: Credibility is as important as philosophy. Explain.

LUNTZ: It means that you have to genuinely say what you mean and mean what you say. Words don't work -- despite the title -- words don't work if they don't seem to reflect what people can see, what they can feel. And if you've got a politician or a CEO who's making claims that things are really good when they're not, the public will reject them.

Give you an example on the Republican side: The Republicans in 2004 tried so hard to convince the American people that the tax cuts, if they passed, were responsible for the economy -- things would have been a lot worse. The American people felt the tax cuts were justified to end wasteful Washington spending, but they did not give credit to the tax cuts for where the economy was at. And every time a Republican said it, people didn't believe it.

[...]

RUSSERT: Number 4: Consistency matters.

LUNTZ: Oh, flip-flop. This is -- just ask John Kerry what it is. The joke was: He was for and against Leave No Child Behind, for and against tax cuts, for and against the war in Iraq. If he'd been elected president, he would've been the first individual ever to be able to deliver the State of the Union address and the rebuttal the same night.

We want people who will look you straight in the eye -- and I watch politicians -- how much -- when you're interviewing them -- how much they look down, whether they have notes in front of them. You want them to look you straight in the eye and absolutely say what you mean and mean what you say. It's why John McCain is popular, it's why Rudy Giuliani is popular, and it's why Barack Obama is popular.

From the February 7 edition of PBS' Tavis Smiley:

TAVIS SMILEY (host): Right quick, gotta get some Republicans in: Giuliani.

LUNTZ: Rudy Giuliani -- it's about results and success. All you have to do with him is -- forget 9-11, that's obvious -- 42nd Street, Times Square. This is a guy who took a city that was on its knees and brought it back to its feet. You can now take your kids there. You can hang out on Times Square at 11 p.m. on a Friday night and not be afraid. New York's a different place. Imagine if you could do that for New York, what he could do for America.

SMILEY: The new book by Dr. Frank Luntz is Words That Work. He's right about this subtitle: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear. Frank Luntz, as always, nice to have you here.

From the January 19 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

CARLSON: I've been really interested to watch Rudy Giuliani's poll numbers over the past couple of months. You were the first person I ever heard say that Giuliani could be president, and it looks like you were right.

He's pretty liberal, obviously. At least his history suggests he's more liberal than your average Republican primary voter.

What kind of language should Giuliani use? What have you told him to say to primary voters in Iowa and South Carolina to convince them that he's, you know, not an abortion-loving, left-wing, Jane Fonda-protégé type?

LUNTZ: Oh, well, we -- I can tell where you stand on this issue just by the language you use. Giuliani --

CARLSON: Oh, really? Were there hints of my position in that?

LUNTZ: Who would have guessed?

First off, I'm not advising him. I worked with him in his mayoral races, but I'm not involved in the presidential.

Second is that Giuliani himself. He's one of those rare politicians where you -- when you say "Rudy," you know who he is. You don't even have to use his last name. And he's got a story that doesn't have sentences and doesn't have paragraphs, or even pages.

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.

And I've got to tell you, it's not just 9-11 that has an impact. It's what happened in Times Square; what happened in 42nd Street -- the idea that you've got the "Taxi Driver," the movie with Robert De Niro --

CARLSON: Yeah.

LUNTZ: People still have that visual of New York in mind, and when they see the way it looks like today, they're blown away.

CARLSON: The New York where you could smoke in bars and they still had big taxis?

LUNTZ: Again, we know where you stand on Rudy Giuliani.

CARLSON: I'm just kidding. Frank Luntz, thank you very much.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by roundhouse (June 25, 2007 9:05 pm ET)
         

      Keep up the pressure MMFA. Luntz is a common street hustler in a $5,000 suit.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by copiousdissent.blogspot.com (June 25, 2007 9:16 pm ET)
         

      Luntz is brilliant, and is very interesting to listen to.  Regardless of his politics, he is THE expert in the field of communication.

      Moreover, Chris Mathews was chief of staff for Tip O'Neal.   George Stephonoupolus was Clinton's Press Secretary.

      There is a huge double standard. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dottiemae (June 25, 2007 10:23 pm ET)
           

        The only thing he is an expert in is manupulation of language.  He takes great pride in twisting language around to benifet his candidate and hurt the opponet without a shred of real debate.  He is what is wrong with our political system today.  To many people so worried about score cards and manupulating the language that we no longer really debate the issues on a meaningful level.  The question that any patriot needs to ask themselves is do you love your country or just your political party.  If you really love your country then you would stop praising those like this who are sending this nation down the drain.  Every great soceity comes to an end--not from war but from its own arrogance and stupidity. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by copiousdissent.blogspot.com (June 25, 2007 11:27 pm ET)
             

          Libs do it too.

           

          "Fairness Doctrine" - Give me a break!! 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (June 26, 2007 4:38 am ET)
               

            Not a good example having both sides of an issue heard on OUR airwaves is basic fairness now calling a policy that allows MORE pollution the clear skys initative is what you were looking for but then again that was Bush

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Max41 (June 26, 2007 8:31 pm ET)
                 

              What does "fairness" have to do with capitalism?

              If your product bites, you'll go out of business. If you have a great product, you'll do just fine.

              Why must we subsidize failure just because most Americans have no interest in listening to liberal talk radio? If they were interested, you wouldn't have to suffer the embarrassment of demanding that Uncle Sam force a bad product few want to hear onto our airwaves.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tex (June 27, 2007 1:08 am ET)
                   

                MAX:

                If the MEDIA is what American consumers DEMAND, I asked you earlier why it would then be that the rightwing claim it's a predominantly LIBERAL MEDIA.

                You answer was that the Market doesn't apply when it comes to Liberal Bias, because nobody wants to hear a Liberal Bias. Thus, LIBERALS were foisting on audiences that which they do not really want. And CONTINUE to do so.

                On the other hand, if there is a RIGHTWING bias, such as talk radio and FOX News, then the audience THERE is following Market drives to reward the message that they support.

                What you DO NOT explain is why it would be that Rightwing ownership of radio and TV stations would not foist on the public that which they do not demand, but that which the owners wish to distribute; i.e. rightwing propaganda.

                You've already established that MEDIA can defy "the MARKET" and bombard the public with messages it does not demand, but why would that be true ONLY of Liberal messages, and not of Conservative messages?

                Your argument makes absolutely no logical sense. In fact, it smells very much like sour grapes, a double standard, whining and excuse-making, mixed in with large dollops of denial and wishful thinking. And a hope that somewhere, somebody might be dumb enough to say, "Yeah! This guy's got a POINT!" 

                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (June 27, 2007 8:55 am ET)
                   

                The fairness is that since the airwaves BELONG TO US we can say that both sides of public issues be heard. These capitalists are making their money off of OUR resource. I understand that to some conservatives making money is sacred and money is GOD, therefore the right and ability of businesses to make money is way more important than the benifit to society. Since the deal we made when we GAVE OUR RESOURCE over to commercial use, that is allowing THEM to make huge profits off of OUR RESOURCE that they perform a public service function. Its ok if YOU think that the sacred ritual of making money is more important than that service function. You can make that argument those who want the fairness docrtine can make the argument that it serves the public when both sides of public issues are heard. Then the democratic process can take place and whoever wins that argument gets their way. I am good with either outcome.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by autopsychic (June 27, 2007 9:33 am ET)
                     

                     I did some reading on "OUR" resource and the rights you think you have. Unfortunately, you are wrong. The rights to equal time you say are deserved only apply to political figures. That rules does not apply to your liberal ideology. So, when MS or AC or GB say something that offends you, you have NO right to claim free air time on OUR airwaves.

                     Another falsehood by the left is debunked.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (June 27, 2007 11:05 am ET)
                       

                    No, you debunked nothing since as usual you are wrong. As far as I can tell you NEVER know what you are talking about journalists were absolutly covered by the fairness doctrine. YOU are mistaking Section 315 of the 1937 communications act with the fairness doctrine which was an FCC decision

                    http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

                    The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by autopsychic (June 28, 2007 2:29 am ET)
                         

                      required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station.

                          That's what I just said. That means you are wrong...WE do not set the rules for OUR airwaves! YOU cannot force a station to air "opposing views" when your feelings get hurt as you have said before. You only get "equal time" if you are a "qualified politician". Which is WAY different than you've been expressing all along.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (June 28, 2007 6:50 am ET)
                           

                        The section YOU lifted came from section 315 of the 1937 Communications act. A law passed by Congress. That is completely different than the Fairness doctrine which was an FCC decision. There is no dispute that the FCC most certainly CAN regulate the airwaves which absolutly belong to us.

                         

                        The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues

                         

                        The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

                         

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by autopsychic (June 28, 2007 9:10 am ET)
                             

                             Hmmm, funny thing about that case is that all the statements made by Hargis were true. I wonder why Cook felt like he was being attacked? Just another liberal whining when faced with adversity. Good job for bringing that case into the discussion.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by solon (June 28, 2007 4:43 pm ET)
                               

                            It may seem like liberal whining to a conservative moron. I assume you dont mind if I dont accept your judgement on this matter as the ultimate authority. IF you FINALLY understand the difference between the 1937 Communications act and the fairness doctrine its a start

                            Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (June 26, 2007 4:52 am ET)
           

        I admit I didn't read the entire article.  What do Stephanopoulos or Mathews have to do with this?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by tex (June 26, 2007 9:20 am ET)
           

        THE expert in the field of "communications":

         [link to www.calvin.edu] is just the eager student wanna-be, copying the master. 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by ChristianDemocrat (June 26, 2007 10:47 am ET)
           

        Moreover, Chris Mathews was chief of staff for Tip O'Neal.   George Stephonoupolus was Clinton's Press Secretary.

        ...and Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat.  So what?  In any event, I haven't noticed MMFA advocating Chris or George for any similar role.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by DorisRussell (June 25, 2007 9:19 pm ET)
         

      This PBS pick is disturbing plane and simple.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by DougReese (June 25, 2007 9:50 pm ET)
         

      Umm, big difference between them and Luntz -- slightly different job descriptions/requirements. 

      To me, one calls for past jobs as political "insiders", the other, well, doesn't.

      I also don't think I'd go quite so far as to say Luntz is the expert in the field of communications.

      Doug Reese

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (June 25, 2007 10:18 pm ET)
         

      Expert in the art of spraying perfume on dog turds.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by UnEasyOne (June 25, 2007 11:11 pm ET)
         

      I emailed PBS - have you?

      Manipulation of the language in order to deceive the ignorant is not communication.  Providing a Republican spinmiester to distort Democratic candidates positions and impugn motives is not balance.

      I predict that PBS pledge drives are gonna hit a brick wall soon if they think that this kind of outrage will be overlooked by their predominately progressive audience just because they trot out a rock band or two at drive time. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pawl1 (June 26, 2007 2:27 am ET)
         

      I emailed PBS - have you?

      Yes, I did. And I reminded it that I cancelled my membership to WETA (PBS's flagship station in Washington) when it developed two conservative programs a couple of years ago.  These were a program hosted by Tucker Carlson whose father headed PBS a few years earlier and another program that featured the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.  The latter program is now on Fox and Carlson, of course, is on MSNBC.  At that time, there was a hugh outcry and the head of WETA subsequently quit.  Also, the chairman of PBS's advisory board, who had been appointed by George W. Bush, was forced to resign.            

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (June 26, 2007 11:31 am ET)
           

        "It's not what you say,  it's what people hear"

        Right there in the title of his book, Luntz is brazenly declaring himself a bullsh*t slinger, just as El Rushbo admitted to being a lying propagandist after the last elections.

        Astounding, to know the limitations of your audience so well that you can throw your cards down in front of them with complete confidence that it won't affect their unthinking allegiance.

        Luntz poll tested his Julie=Annie jingles, deciding that the most contrived and hackneyed one to satisfy his target demo was that RG "tells it like it is".

        Does it sound like Luntz may have been testing out that old Mencken quote about the improbability of underestimating the American public?

        If you're tempted to think so, see the post in this very thread that describes Luntz as "brilliant". 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by zellmerjon515 (June 27, 2007 1:48 pm ET)
         

      I hope PBS recognizes the importance of analyzing the performance of the Democratic field in an unbiased manner.  It would be UNJUST that someone with Luntz's extreme partisan history would be involved in this - (hopefully) - unbiased PBS manner of analyzing the Democratic field.  I would hope that the Republican field would also be analyzed in an unbiased manner for the benefit of US and Worldwide populations.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.