I believe PBS will do the right thing here, but just in case they dont...
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
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Trusting PBS
I trust PBS only slightly and none of its affiliate stations at all. And, by the way, why should Tavis "He of the Covenant" Smiley get a pass on this decision? I understand that it may not be his call but he still has a voice that can be used.
My objections to PBS using Frank Lutz is only part of my disagreement with this process. Why does PBS believe that viewers need any post-debate analyses at all. What a viewer hears and sees during these artificial events is exactly what they get. If the candidates were actually debating issues instead of providing answers to questions as if they were appearing before a knock-off version of a dissertation committee then the lack of a need for "official interpreters" of political speak would be obvious. These are not debates. They are televised events that hold little more significance than watching trained seals or dolphins catching fish on the fly.
Maybe I'm feeling the effects of the humidity here but I still don't believe that I need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
These are not debates.
Hard to argue with that.
People who are paying attention at this point really don't need the interpreter. There's a class of folks who come in later that are the type that ask you what just happened as they watch the movie with you. Those folks need someone to let them know what made them jump. And Lutz ain't the one you want.
PT: You may note your
PT:
You may note your position, and a question Professor Kim was asked, made me dig a bit deeper.