Smiley confirms that Luntz -- and only Luntz -- will provide analysis of PBS' Democratic presidential forum
On the June 28 edition of New York Public Radio station WNYC's The Brian Lehrer Show, PBS host Tavis Smiley, who was scheduled to moderate a Democratic presidential forum later that day, confirmed that Republican pollster Frank Luntz will be PBS' and the Tavis Smiley program's sole provider of focus group analysis for the forum coverage. Asked by host Brian Lehrer, "Just Luntz or do you have a Democratic pollster there too?" Smiley responded: "[J]ust Luntz."
Media Matters has called on PBS and the Tavis Smiley program to reconsider their decision to use Luntz in their post-forum analysis. As Media Matters has noted, polling organizations have censured and reprimanded Luntz, a longtime Republican strategist who worked in several political campaigns for Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani. In September 2004, MSNBC dropped its plans to include Luntz in coverage of that year's presidential forum following a letter from Media Matters that outlined Luntz's GOP ties and criticism from his peers for misrepresenting and withholding results of his research.
Referring to Media Matters' description of the plan to use Luntz in post-forum coverage, Smiley said, "The facts are wrong, and I don't have any more time to waste responding to people who don't know what they're talking about." But in its original and subsequent items describing Luntz's announced role with respect to post-forum coverage, Media Matters quoted directly from the April 4 PBS press release and published nothing inaccurate.
Smiley also mistakenly asserted that Media Matters did not post to its website a June 27 statement issued by Neal Kendall, executive producer of Tavis Smiley, clarifying Luntz's role in post-forum coverage. In fact, Media Matters posted the full Kendall statement in a release at the top of its home page on June 27 at 3:56 p.m.
From the June 28 edition of WNYC's The Brian Lehrer Show:
LEHRER: You know, I've been getting emails from the liberal media watch group Media Matters, and they don't like some role that Republican pollster Frank Luntz has tonight. Is Luntz involved in some way?
SMILEY: Luntz is not involved tonight, and the person behind that Media Matters website, David Brock. I -- I always say where persons like him are concerned -- and I don't mean to cast aspersions on him, but his history is well documented of flipping back and forth between being a liberal and a conservative -- I always say, one, consider the source. That's true of anything. He's the guy behind Media Matters. So one, consider the source. Number two, his facts are wrong. Number three, PBS put out a statement two days ago, checking him on his facts, which to my knowledge, as yet he has not posted that response on his website. The bottom line is Frank Luntz, like any number of other pollsters, is people-metering 30 African-Americans who are all Democrats in a separate room adjacent to the main stage.
Tomorrow night, on my television show, I'll be joined by those 30 persons with the data that Mr. Luntz and company have collected about what they thought of the debate while it was going on. So how anyone, Republican, Democrat, black or white, could spin what 30 persons who are black and Democratic voters said, is nonsensical. So we will have, on our regular PBS program tomorrow night, a recap with the 30 persons who are, again, all African-American, all registered Democrats, and we'll do the same thing in the Republican conversation later in September. But that drama, that nonsense at Media Matters is just that. The facts are wrong, and I don't have any more time to waste responding to people who don't know what they're talking about.
LEHRER: Just Luntz or do you have a Democratic pollster there too?
SMILEY: We have a -- just -- just Luntz. We have one pollster for each process, and I might add right quick, that there are any number of media organizations, I believe, including The New York Times, who want to cover all aspects of the story, so there will be media people in the room where the people-metering is taking place so they can cover the story, and I'll be talking about it tomorrow morning on [ABC's] Good Morning America as their lead guest just after 7 o'clock, and again on Meet the Press with Tim Russert on NBC this Sunday.
LEHRER: All right.
Smiley: "We have one pollster for each process.." well, then why not go out and find a non-partisan one, instead of using one WELL KNOWN as being a favorite of the GOP? You can bet that you wont see a Democratic pollster doing data for any GOP debaes.
I'm sure Luntz has already done his "analysis" in advance of the debate- voters think that Hillary is shrill and unelecteble, they think that Obama's name is scary, they think Edwards is too prissy and obsessed with his looks, blah blah blah.
"So how anyone, Republican, Democrat, black or white, could spin what 30 persons who are black and Democratic voters said, is nonsensical." (Smiley)
Wait. Is he saying the idea that one could spin the opinions of 30 people is nonsense, or is he predicting that Luntz's spin itself will be nonsense?
Smiley is so stupid he doesn't understand how a pollster can spin these people's answers.
He's either ignorant, or a right-wing tool.
Obviously the only ways to solve the problem are these:
1. Pass a federal law making it illegal for Republicans, conservatives, or anyone who has ever said anything a far-left nutcase doesn't like to appear on television.
2. Have all the people mentioned in solution # 1 shot.
Smiley sure does a great impersonation of a liberal for a guy you all lie about, er, think is a Republican shill.
Thurs. May 3, 2007: "Why shouldn't we be outraged? Why shouldn't we be angry with George Bush?"
Oct 2000, regarding executions in Texas: "As far as I’m concerned, Bush in Texas is nothing more than a serial killer."
Dec 20, 2000: "When you come down on the wrong side of the death penalty question, when you come down on the wrong side of the affirmative action question, when you come down on the wrong side of the education question, I could go on and on..."
(it's always helpful for media pinheads to tell us who's right and who's wrong)
This can be found in Smiley's bio at the website I'll link to after this quote.
"He has written three books since 1993, most notably the liberal manifesto Hard Right: Straight Talk about the Wrongs of the Right."
http://www.gale.com/free_resources/bhm/bio/smiley_t.htm
Way to go lefties. Smiley wrote a "liberal manifesto", called Bush a serial killer and worked for Democratic Mayor of LA Tom Bradley.
Yet you label him a shill for Bush, a right wing tool, etc, all because he dared have a GOP pollster on his show.
I shall conclude with this:
Immigration bill: R.I.P.
Fairness Doctrine: R.I.P. : )~
If Carville were giving the only analysis for a GOP debate they would hear the snivelling on PLUTO
Or
1) get a non partisan analyist, if one cant be found
2) get a Democratic leaning analyist for analysis for the Dem debate and a GOP leaning analyist for the GOP debate
3 Find someone as partisan toward the GOP to give analysis for the GOP debate as Luntz is toward Dems. Its a little thing called balance. I know you guys like a stacked deck and snivel piteously when you dont get it. Its not too much to ask that Dems are treated the same as the GOP
I like it. Will you be first in line?
This Smiley is a babbling piece of right-wing bunk!!
He mada a personal attack on David Brock instead of dealing with the issues.
Bottom line: This man does not deserve to be hosting a Presidential Forum at PBS, or anywhere else. PBS has disgraced itself.
SMILEY: Luntz is not involved tonight, and the person behind that Media Matters website, David Brock. I -- I always say where persons like him are concerned -- and I don't mean to cast aspersions on him, but his history is well documented of flipping back and forth between being a liberal and a conservative -- I always say, one, consider the source. That's true of anything. He's the guy behind Media Matters. So one, consider the source.
Slam Dunk Smiley!
Taz,
The only slam dunk that Smiley has...is the one where he slam dunks his head in his toilet.
Un ... not exactly, Taz...
More like swung on and missed - strike three.
Kinda like you.
I'm very disappointed with Tavis Smiley here. While I've never been a big fan of his even when he hosted his own show on BET, I could at least respect the fact that he was thoughtful and considerate when evaluating others he disagreed with. However, his childish, self-serving attitude and personal attacks against David Brock is pretty ridiculous. David Brock is TRYING to help and warn Smiley on what a fraud and crook Luntz really is, and Smiley is being too stubborn on this one; he's allowing Brock's past to cloud his judgment and right this wrong. Also, Smiley should be smart enough to know that Conservatives have been misconstruing the thoughts and words of blacks for years to serve their own interests and galvanize their base into a reactionary action, so to think that Luntz is incapable of doing that because the participants are black is even more ridiculous on Smiley's part. A liberal, black journalist like Smiley—someone that’s good friends with Cornel West, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Michael Eric Dyson, etc.—should already know this!
I've lost major respect for Smiley on this one, and his smug attitude towards Media Matters—the site that first brought attention to Don Imus and Bernard McGuirk’s racist, sexist remarks against blacks—is really going to hurt his credibility down the future.
Echoing a better past, both Tavis Smiley and the current PBS ilk delude themselves rather myopically and thus, the viewing public at large. The PBS upper management has been repeatedly gutted by the current administration’s fascist reign. Mr. Smiley, on the other hand, would appear to have been duped, long before, into an “Emperor’s News Clothes” surety [of jest] such that he continuously dupes himself into believing he knows what he’s doing. This being much to the delight of America’s “El Supremo”, whose minions continue to ravage the entirety of the PBS basis, if not the country as a whole. Both Smiley & the PBS upper echelons are congruent in their own personal desires…much to the continuing demise of this land, its citizenry, the rule of law & order, our commerce & livelihoods and all within which is right & proper for everyone to live by.
I'm very disappointed with Tavis as well. I'm a fan of his. His book, "Hard Left" was a very spirited tome that talked about how important it is that we fight back against the right. He should understand that he and Media Matters are -- or at least should be -- on the same side.
That's why its so puzzling to me that he would allow Luntz on his program and stoop to attacking David Brock. And I'm going to e-mail Tavis and tell him so.
I guess PBS now stands for Partisan Bull S-h-i-t.
PBS responded to my email condemning this with a form essentially saying nothing - referring to "Dr. Luntz." The response failed to address the concerns of partisanship I raised of course, and it seemed to me that by referring to him as Dr. Luntz (three times) without any mention of his partisan ties, they were simply trying to legitimize him.
I responded, asking if PBS intended to hire a clearly partisan Democrat to spin the Republican focus group after the debate they are hosting later. I also pointed out that I could see Luntz on Fox news if I so chose.
I eagerly await their response.
Yeah, I got the same e-mail Uneasy...
They're attempt to appease us was truly pathetic.
I e-mailed them back that I was not amused, and that it seems to me they're "gutless" for not dealing with legitimate questions raised by Media Matters.
Here's my take on Smiley's somewhat baffling attitude towards MM & Luntz. Smiley knows luntz will pervert the audience reaction and wants this to happen.
I'm figuring that Smiley has already picked out his candidate and knows Luntz will favor them.. or maybe he just doesn't like any of them (including Obama, which he might consider faux-african-american) and would love to see Luntz intrepret (skew) the results in such a way to make all of them look disengaged & distant from black voters..
Just theorizing here because Smiley's attitude about this is just plain weird.
God forbid that a conservative appear on PBS! After all they are owned - lock, stock and barrel - by the rabid left of the country. I just heard Ms. Nina pontificating about the Supreme Court this afternoon. To think that a conservative voice would actually be allowed on the same airwaves as the goddess - why it's just sacrilege!
I only listen to PBS to see what the left is thinking, no one in their right mind would listen to them for any primary source news.
And yet when PEW did a poll to see which newsources made it least likely to have one of four misconceptions about Iraq PBS and NPR were the main sources LEAST likely to give their audience one of those misconceptions and which was MOST likely to give those misconceptions? FOX what a shock
Oh!, very good EdRoss(whatever)...
I'm sure you get your "real news" from Limboob or Hannity. Or maybe you really get brainy and listen to Michael Savage.
Or maybe you just read Joseph Goebel's diary.
I see somebody rang the bell in idiot troll-land today.
Nah, you guys on the right use FOX for your news. You know the unfair, unbalanced and most of all untrue #1 news source for the right.
I watch every cable network, and the broadcast nets once in a while to see how weak they've become.
I'm not one of the closed-minded, intolerant people who refuse to watch an entire network just because people of all political stripes are allowed on the air routinely. There are more liberals at FNC than there are conservatives at all the other nets combined.
And yet again, for someone who constantly whines about people whose posts are off-topic, you sure do go off-topic alot, Pearl.
Notice how I do not hit the flag button.
You mean when you want real news and analysis, you listen to what people on PBS are saying right? Because even though on some of their more opinion oriented shows they do have some bias' leaning one way or another, their actual NEWS shows, you know, the ones you guys forget about, present the NEWS in an un-biased approach and all. But then again, like Colbert once said, "Reality has a liberal bias." or something along those lines.
I mean it's tough being presented with the truth isn't it?
And the thing about PBS and NPR is that they are not owned by any one entity. By and far, they are funded by individual contributions from individual people, and sometimes they get some money from corporations, but, most of their funding comes from donors. Which of course leaves them open to be able to report news in an unbiased manner, because they don't have to worry about offending their stock holders, or some CEO of like GE, or NewsCorp.
MMFA trying to tell Smiley about Luntz is equivalent to telling Smiley his zipper is down. Smiley on the other hand thinks he's not going to fall for that one. But seriously folks Smiley's zipper is down.
The so called 'main stream media' is really corporate media.
Most of the talking head pundits on teevee are corporate stooges.
It's appalling to see our Public Broadcasting System turning corporate on us right in front of our eyes.
This is happening under the new BushCo appointed PBS honcho.
Luntz is the Joseph Goebbels of corporate fascism in America.
Smiley is a corporate stooge.
He does what he's told to do.
Tavis Smiley thinks very, very highly of himself. He has these unmoving ideas and seems to believe everything he says. Sometimes he has good things to say but he just seems to come out trying to push himself and promote himself. He does not know what he is talking about here so he doesn't address it. Since he doesn't know just like most of the media, he attacks the person and not the issue.
OK, fine Tavis. If you continue to talk sh** like that, PBS gets not another dime from me. Thank god for Brian Lehrer, he is truly a dying breed.
David Brock "has a history?" Seems like Tavis would like to flip sides as well, to the cushier digs of the GOP country club that becons with rafts of cocktail weenies.
Of course, David Brock has a history. He was an unscrupulous Republican operative who trafficked in falsehood until he saw the error of his ways. He then made a full confession with sincere apology and has since done his level best to set matters straight by exposing falsehoods like those he used to purvey in a forum he himself established.
Would that thousands more of the bottom feeders now intent on destroying our Democracy discover an inner integrity as Mr Brock has and come into the light. We would welcome them with the same enthusiasm that we have David.
Flip-flop is fairly applied to someone like McCain who's actions are governed by beliefs only as long as they don't interfere with his ambitions - not David Brock, who has changed fundamentally - and stuck to it.
Best post of the week.
The funniest too.
These people can rationalize anything.
What's funny about it? What is it that makes it a "rationalization" and not, well, the simple truth? Can't people change their ways, or are people tarnished for life no matter what they do if they've done something they regret? That's not a very forgiving, Christian attitude for one who belongs to such a God-fearing party.
Uneasy's post was perfectly fair and valid. You can't make a meaningful reply, so you post garbage. Sadly typical of your sort, really.
I've never paid a whole lot of attention to Smiley, but I was under the impression that he is thought of as a righteous (read, non-sellout) media personality by the masses of Black America. His outburst about Media Matters shows that he's not such a non-sellout. I don't think he's a conservative, but I do I think he's been revealed as just another thin-skinned. job-scared, corporate weasel who is doing what he's been told to do. I've lost quite a bit of respect for him too. I have no doubt that he will be asked to elaborate on why he thinks a liberal website that has never shown a hit of being anti-black is so awful. I think he's gonna regret his little tantrum.
I can see the irony storm on the horizon... PBS, once, was a great source of news and opinions one normally wouldn't hear on MSM, and, even with the tag of 'they're so damn libral', it was informative... NOW, apparently, the wheels have been set in motion (with Smiley and Mara) that are showing P(robably) B(roadcasting) S(hiite) to be EXACTLY like MSM- and I agree with the above post- it's about money and those who apperently are NOT giving it (the federal government) and more about those who ARE giving it (the federal government- who got it from Scaife and Mellon and Murdoch and such..)
And who would you like to replace Smiley with? Odds are it would be some white guy (demographically that's the highest possibility), I thought we were fans of diversity? Shouldn't we be happy an African-American has a national forum?
So because someone is black, nobody can criticize their actions because of "diversity"?
Please make a better effort.
Read my previous remarks about unbiased pundits such as Russert, Stephanopolous, etc. as examples of where clearly left-wingers are promoted as "balanced". My point about the comment in regards to Smiley's race was to give an example of a typical liberal argument everytime a con complains about someone of an opposite race the claim will inevitably be that we're racist. It was sarcasm brainiac
My bad, it's seems my previous posts about Stepho, russert amd chris matthews ahs beeen removed. Quite simply why is it hunky dory when former employees of liberal politicians get their own shows but if a con gets a break it "biased"?
But, do you think that the cleary partisan and lying pollster should cover this topic?
Why not? Libs have their own shows and are praised as unbiased and it's already been pointed out that Smiley himself is a lib why shouldn't (in the spirit of "fairness") a con have a forum in this regard? I thought the dems and libs were for equal representaion of both sides? Isn't that what the fairness doctrine is about? Why is it that when a lib has a show he's balanced and according to some of the left people like stephonopalous, russert and that ilk are actually rightwingers? Please read max41's outting of smiley as a left wing stooge and explain why in what according to people like diane feinstein should be a "balanced" media should righties not have some representaion?
I do not mean that. I like rograms that are balanced and not clearly left or right wing. But if a democratic forum is covered by someone who has been holding back facts in the past, this would certainly not be a qualified person to cover anything. This is not even addressing the issue whether a clearly partisan (read republican) individual should cover the democratic forum. It should certainly not be a crearly partisan democrat that should cover the forum, either. And even having them both cover it doesn't work. Just select someone whose work proved to be reliable and if possible less or not partisan. Being partisan will always push facts aside!
And don't forget: Smiley will not cover anything here, only Luntz!
You can address any such arguments on their merits, instead of making an idiotic parody post reflecting your absurd view of them. That would be the intelligent way of going about it, brainiac.
I'm more interested in the merits of the criticism of anyone than the skin color of the target. Certainly Jeter will be along any minute to chastise you for painting the "typical" liberal view with such a broad brush.
And to add, you say this as if conservatives don't cry racism when a minority conservative is criticized. Is that the "typical" conservative view?
What I don't understand is Smiley keeps supporting Luntz as being an expert and the top of his field...but on the other hand he defends the hiring choice by saying there is no way to spin the results because you have 30 balck men inputting their opinion into a box. Well, if there is a machine that is going to collaborate and track opinion, then can't they just read the sheet? Can't they just read what is collaborated in the "box"? Why do they need such an "expert" as Luntz to read the printout of what the balcks are thinking?
Smiley has stated the men will be in the room with media. So again, can't the men just tell the media people what they think and what their opinion is? Why does somebody like Luntz need to speak for them if they are all in the room together? Just cut out lunts and have the media ask questions to this focus group.
Here is my take on the only possible reason this will work. The "30 black men" are going to be locked in a room, watching the debate on a tv. They will have a box in front of them, metering their level of approval in real time. The box will track all the opinions and then chart them on a graph or similar-style printout. Luntz will then get the printout, compare it to what was on TV at that time, and essentially be able to "interpret" what that data point on the graph means according to his "expert opinion and analysis." If this is the case, the results are very open to spin as there is no real way for the media to judge the opinions of individual focus group members, and since THAT is the case, there is no way for any one "black man" to contradict Luntz's spin on the results which will be an average and can't be attributed to any single person.
THAT is how it is possible to manipulate the results of a focus group like this. If PBS cared about what the focus group actually says, just have them say it. Encourage the men to speak out and give their VOICED opinions as they watch the debate. Why they need opinions recorded by a computer for Luntz to then "interpret" makes no sense.
It is also significant that Luntz selected the audience and participants for a number of phony "town hall meetings" staged for Bush. We have no idea about the makeup of this group - we haven't been told. If Luntz selected this focus group however, it will make little difference if his analysis is honest or not. The outcome will be predetermined by his selections.
From that newsmax link- "white racist liberals like Aaron McGruder, Gary Trudeau, Ted Rall, and John "Sly" Sylvester seek to humiliate Rice and Rogers-Brown."
Aaron McGruder?
Oh my goodness they didnt know Aaron McGruder was black? Did they ever READ a boondocks? That is really sad.
Interesting link addressing Luntz's focus group:
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/5-reasons-why-i-dont-believe-taviss-post-debate-focus-group/