Matt Sheffield's post over at Ace's place ("The Attempted Crucifixion of Frank Luntz") noted the heat PBS had received for having GOP pollster Frank Luntz participate as an analyst at last Thursday's Democrat debate:
The blog left's puppet master, David Brock, sends out an "alert" informing them that someone who might possibly be conservative is going to be allowed to report as a "mainstream" journalist.
..... Thankfully, PBS has not backed down. Luntz, who is a respected pollster and is often quoted in liberal publications is not getting the shaft, making him one of the very few Republicans that has (so far) managed to escape the assault of the conservaphobic left.
Mr. Brock and his Media Matters (MM) organization are being quite selective.
In August 2006, longtime "Friend of Bill" Clinton Vinod Gupta's Info USA, which had spent its entire corporate history in "data collection and distribution," made what should have been seen as an eyebrow-raising acquisition:
OMAHA, Neb. & PRINCETON, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 4, 2006--infoUSA Inc. (Nasdaq: IUSA), the leading provider of business and consumer information products, database marketing services, data processing services and sales and marketing solutions, today announced that it has entered into a definitive merger agreement under which it will acquire Opinion Research Corporation (Nasdaq: ORCI) for $12.00 per share in cash.
The Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) acquisition was completed on December 4.
Gupta's longtime connections with the Clintons, up to and including a nebulous consulting arrangement between Info USA and Bill, along with contributions to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, were cataloged in detail by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann in a May 24 New York Post column. A May 20 New York Times investigative piece (now behind TimeSelect firewall; excerpted at this BizzyBlog post), whose authors were perhaps unaware of the Clinton nexus, wrote up an Info USA affiliate as one of the main providers of the "sucker lists" used by elder-scam artists to fleece vulnerable seniors.
Within 45 days of the acquisition's consummation, CNN, the same network whose late-1990s boss Rick Kaplan obsessed over covering for Bill Clinton's assorted problems, made a very interesting announcement (original PDF saved as HTML for fair use and discussion purposes):
For Release: Jan. 12, 2007
CNN Announces New Polling Partner Opinion Research Corporation
CNN political director Sam Feist announced today that Opinion Research Corporation will become CNN’s new polling partner as the network moves toward the 2008 elections. Beginning in 2007, polls released by the network will be identified as CNN/Opinion Research Corporation surveys.
"Opinion Research Corporation’s reputation for independent, objective analysis and its excellent reputation in the industry make the firm the ideal polling partner for CNN,” Feist said. “As the network gears up to offer the most in-depth and expansive coverage of the 2008 election, Opinion Research Corporation will be a key part of giving viewers the accurate and relevant information they demand."
Opinion Research Corporation, founded in 1938, is widely known and respected for its independent, non-partisan polls. The polling firm has worked with CNN since April 2006 and in that time has conducted national polls, speech reaction polls, state polls and flash/overnight polls.
One can't help but wonder, given the change in ownership, whether ORC's vaunted independence and objectivity are endangered. Regardless, its independence in appearance is long gone.
David Brock's Media Matters was the primary driver of the objection to Luntz. As these MM site searches show ("Clinton Gupta" and "CNN Clinton"; both entered without quotes; no results relevant to what is discussed here returned), Brock's George Soros affiliates-backed crew, while whining about one appearance of a GOP pollster on PBS, "somehow" hasn't gotten around to noticing a very real and long-term pollster-related conflict of interest occurring on a daily basis at what appears, once again, to be the Clinton News Network.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The more the left try and control the polls..
July 1, 2007 - 10:37 ET by c5thenThe more the left try and control the opinion polls the more skewed the polls will get and the more surprised the left will be when the real results are tabulated. Whether it's a presidential election result or the vote in Congress on a particular peice of legislation.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
But Brock is somehow perfect
July 1, 2007 - 12:04 ET by SMGalbraithBut Brock is somehow perfectly happy with the Media Matters' official mascot - otherwise known as Keith Olbermann - covering Republican debates.
Funny how that is.
(Ok, so I'm not answering his specific complaint. Folks, this is David Brock. He deserves no response, just contempt).
I was one of the people that
July 1, 2007 - 16:23 ET by Space CowboyI was one of the people that emailed PBS regarding Frank Luntz based on David Brock’s alert. As one blogger put it on pamshouseblend.com:
It was a no-brainer; the GOP ties should have been disclosed (particularly since Luntz has close links to GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani); it probably wouldn't matter since many pollsters are partisan and appear as talking heads all the time. The added monkey wrench issue with Luntz, however, is that in 1997, according to Salon, he was reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research.
So, the protest to PBS is 1) why use Luntz when there are many less partisan pollsters, and 2) if you’re going to use someone with a gold-plated conservative background, you should at least disclose it to the audience. Sounds reasonable to me.
Anyway, I really want to share this hallirious Wikiality posting about Luntz. Wikiality (“The Truthiness Encyclopedia”) is a Steven Colbert sendup of Wikipedia. This is the first time I’ve actually gone to the site and it was worth the effort. This is a hoot.
Frank Luntz is one of the premire (not elite) word smiths (not spinmeisters) of America's conservatives (not Republican Party).
He has a command of the English language like no other.
Many words have been used to describe Frank:
But never gay.
No one has ever called him that. Some people say he has the phatness of Karl Rove and the word-skillz of Jeff Gannon.
But no one has ever called him gay.
His picture (which didn’t copy) has no name under it, just the statement “not gay”. And having “the phatness of Karl Rove and the word-skillz of Jeff Gannon”? JEFF GANNON???
I love the comparison to the faux White House Press Corps “journalist” who was equally famous for getting a press pass with no journalistic background (other than as an online blogger), using his access to the the President to lob softball question that will forever be remembered in the annals of the Press Corps history, and being the producer of and performer in several military-themed gay websites.
I was one of the people that
July 1, 2007 - 17:07 ET by SMGalbraithI was one of the people that emailed PBS regarding Frank Luntz based on David Brock’s alert. As one blogger put it on pamshouseblend.com:
I'm curious (sorta'). Not to defend bad behavior (if you will) by pointing to other bad behavior but did you have any problems with George Stephanopoulos going from the White House to covering/reporting/analysing that same White House when he went to work for ABC?
If one is concerned with the possible bias of Frank Luntz (a pollster), one must be positively paralyzed with the thought of a Stephanopoulous (who was also at one time the Chief of Staff for Congressman Dick Gephardt) covering news.
Perhaps you could forward me Brock's e-mails expressing concern about Steph's conflict of interest?
(I won't even begin to raise the issue of the "moderator" Tavis Smiley, a "journalist" who calls George Bush a "mass murderer")
SMG
The landscape is littered wit
July 1, 2007 - 18:03 ET by Space CowboyThe landscape is littered with pundits - both left and right - who had or still have political connections with their respective roots. Most of us know some of this background. It doesn't usually merit mention by the networks or cable shows. For instance, is Dick Morris introduced as a conservative? I think most people think he's liberal because he once advised Clinton.
When Stephanopolus plays the role of an editorialist or commentator, opinion is allowed. He also reads the news on occasion and, in that case, he's just a pretty face reading what the ABC producers put on the teleprompter and his personal opinion ISN'T allowed. I don't watch him often enough to know if he violtates these guidelines.
The objection to Luntz has to do with both his roots AND the fact that he was censured by his fellow pollsters back in the '90s for behavior considered questionable.
In the case of his conservative background, we're saying 1) why choose Luntz over other equally qualified people, and 2) if you are going to use him, give the audience some idea of his background. His background as someone who is expert in "framing" for the Republicans is particularily inappropriate for the forum he was part of with Smiley.
And, in the case of his questionable behavior that he was censured for, again, why choose Luntz when you can get others without a cloud over them.
I did watch some of the forum and found nothing wrong with the roll Luntz played. But, that was just a short visit. The funny thing was that he seemed to be pumping up Hillary. (The cynic in me wants to know if Hillary is the conservatives dream candidate.)
JBWouldn't the whole PBS grou
July 1, 2007 - 18:12 ET byJB
Wouldn't the whole PBS group with Tavis be enough to offset a single analyst? Talk about whining it's only 1 out of 50?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
The landscape is littered wit
July 1, 2007 - 18:12 ET by SMGalbraithThe landscape is littered with pundits - both left and right - who had or still have political connections with their respective roots
Sure, punditry (criticism/opinion/analysis) is one thing. If the commentary is labeled or identified as being just that - opinion - who cares what the background of the person is? Hell, CNN had Carville giving his views on the presidential campaign while he was working for the Kerry camp.
But it was identified as that: simply crapola, er analysis (in Carville's case: same thing).
As long as the viewer knows that what is being disseminated is again just that, opinion, the background of the person is essentially meaningless.
New reporting is another issue.
Stephanopoulous does hard news reporting. He does more than occasionally anchoring the news. He files news stories. Indeed, while moderating the Sunday show during the 1990s, he would be asking questions of people he helped get into power.
That is far more questionable than simply having Luntz on giving his views/analysis of the debate. Wasn't Luntz identified as a Republican pollster? I've seen Democrats pollsters (Stanley Greenberg, Cecilia Lake et al.) on PBS shows giving their views on all the time.
Look, no one seriously believes that if Steph. had worked for a Republican Administration that Soros's paid flacks at Media Matters wouldn't be raising a huge stink about him.
Methinks, to be blunt, that the poll criticism is a red herring on Brock's part. He would be just as angry (feigned, of course) had Luntz had no questions about his professional activities.
SMG
.
I get your point and it's a v
July 1, 2007 - 18:39 ET by Space CowboyI get your point and it's a valid one about Stephanopolus and his background.
However, I would look at the big picture for the answer. Does Stephanopolus do a fair job of presenting the issues in his role as hard news journalist for starters - despite his background?
And, secondly, consider that he is part and parcel of the MSM and as such he may stray left of where you would like him to be but, because of his position in a corporate-run medium driven by ratings and profit, he's never going to go far from center. As much as people on NewsBusters would love to have it be true, the MSM ISN'T a liberal medium even with people like Stephanopolus aboard. Where, for instance, was he when the MSM was regurgitating the White House paplum in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq?
If you want to see the statistics, look at what David Brock and Media Matters have done to document the proponderence of conservative-leaning guests on the major netword's Sunday political talk shows. This is "liberal"?
look at what David Brock and
July 1, 2007 - 19:14 ET by SMGalbraithlook at what David Brock and Media Matters have done to document the proponderence of conservative-leaning guests on the major netword's Sunday political talk shows. This is "liberal"?
Well, what Brock considers "conservative-leaning" could lead to an entire discussion right there.
It seems to me that one also has to recognize the fact that - until this year - Republicans ran both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. It's understandable, then, that most guests on the Sunday political talk shows (how's that for slicing it thin? what about the other shows?) would be on the right-of-center since they were the news makers, if you will.
With the Democratic takeover of Congress, I would wager that any disparity would disappear.
Second, content analysis of the shows is much more informative than just a list of the guests, conservative leaning or otherwise. Is a news show with two or three conservatives on but all being asked tough questions a biased program in favor of the political right?
If one only examines the makeup of the guests, one would argue it is. But that is much too simplistic an analysis.
As to Stephanopoulous's questioning leading up to the war: Since he was in the White House when the Clinton Administration was making the same claims about Saddam re WMD and his support for terrorism, my guess (can't recall) is that he was less aggressive in challenging Bush White House claims.
After all, nearly everything the Bush Administration said about Iraq echoed what Democrats - liberal or otherwise - were saying during the 1990s.
SMG
Very good point about the con
July 1, 2007 - 19:36 ET by Space CowboyVery good point about the control of Congress. And, Brock factored that in. Even after the turnover, the guest listed continued to be stacked conservative. There was even one show he spotlights immediately after the election last fall that saw the Congress go Democratic where the subject was focused on something else with . . . you guessed it, conservative guests. Sorry I can't remember the details at this point nor have time to look it up.
And, yes, you would have to consider what filter Brock uses to decide. You can look at the study at Media Matters.
As for the WMD/Clinton-believed-it-too claim. Not quite. Yes, there was a time when they did but there was also a time when they had no idea. And the U.N. inspectors were disputing the White House right up to the eve of the election. It's way too simplistic to say that Bush/Cheney get a free pass on that. What hasn't been investigated YET - four years and counting since the invasion - is the USE of the intelligence they had at their disposal. Much has surfaced to support the scewing of the intelligence but the White House never allowed that subject to be explored in the studies they commissioned and their Republican allies in Congress avoided it too. But any day now we should get that long-delayed study and it will finally remove the transparent fig leaf the Administration and their lackeys have used to claim that they were misled by the intelligence.
As for the WMD/Clinton-believ
July 1, 2007 - 20:46 ET by SMGalbraithAs for the WMD/Clinton-believed-it-too claim. Not quite.
Well, this is certainly not the place to debate pre-war intelligence.
Suffice it for me to say that, if we set aside the very contentious debate about Saddam's nuclear program (aluminum tubes/yellowcake et al.), the Clintonistas were adament in claiming that Iraq continued to have WMDs.
Here for example (Ken Pollack, former State Department official) is the best overview of what the Clinton White House believed he had.
There is no evidence that I've seen (Silbermann commission/SSCI study) that shows the Bush White House cooked the books. That is, made stuff up entirely. Did they exagerrate the threat? Sure? Did they ignore or overlook (deliberately or not) countervailing evidence? Definitely.
But everyone believed - including UN inspectors - that Saddam continued to have some WMDs. Small quantities, to be sure; but some.
We're getting in the tall grass here. You can have the last comment; otherwise, I'll move on.
Thanks
Best.
SMG
Thanks for your thoughtful po
July 1, 2007 - 23:02 ET by Space CowboyThanks for your thoughtful post.
I'm going to read your links at a later time. Got to meet the girlfriend. It's a worthy debate but one that I'm just not able to do justice to unless I can link you to some concrete examples - something I unfortunately don't have the time right now. Maybe another time.
I do believe that the books were cooked and have heard that from sources that I believe are credible. The yellow cake story AND the aluminum tube story both provide numerous and excellent examples of efforts by the intelligence group that Fieth led in the Pentagon and the White House Iraq Group to continue to push their version long after it was discredited. And, I believe that the report due any day from the Senate Intelligence Committee will confirm that and more.
The Silbermann Commission you note above was SPECIFICALLY instructed NOT to pursue the misuse of intelligence angle.
And, of course, all of this ignores completely the fact that the Pentagon completely botched the occupation. I think people would have forgotten the dishonesty about intelligence if the U.S. had succeeded in their effort. What we have now is a first rate dissaster. Doesn't leave most people in a very charitable mood, huh?
OK, see you another time.
Space or johnbo or whatever
July 1, 2007 - 23:59 ET by Free StinkerSpace or johnbo or whatever you call yourself now.
You should check these links. Something about Uranium. One of them talks about 400 tons of the stuff.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.
}}----> SpaceBoy's back
July 1, 2007 - 20:56 ET by Cool ArrowSo Clinton's Cruise Missile speech of 12/19/98 in which he specifically stated he bombed Iraq to thwart their WMD capability was just a clever ploy to avert attention from the girl in the blue dress?
You can't have it both ways Space Cadet.
Lysdexics untie!
I'm glad Frank is almost un
July 1, 2007 - 16:37 ET by BondPlainBondI'm glad Frank is almost unscathed by this most recent tinfoil hat lunacy of the Left.
Is Soros THAT much of a figurehead to the Left? His influence is this great? One man? That, in and of itself, is MORE than frightening. Seeing, as reported by the MSM so very often, the mention of his (glowing) name in association with so many of the in-power Left of our government (Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Obama, Pelosi, etc, etc, etc) is always eyebrow lifting. Does the Left sincerely believe America is unable to put two and two together?
I have a complaint about Congress ignoring Speaker Pelosi's InfoUSA connections.
When is Waxman going to investigate Nancy Pelosi? How much more evidence is needed? Her son, Paul, has unencumbered access to all voter information records held by InfoUSA. That's why he was hired! Paul Pelosi is "in charge" of that specific information. Come on!
What the HELL is going on in our government? Libby gets sentenced to jail time for saying "Tuesday" instead of "Wednesday" and Pelosi (not to mention, Feinstein) is free to conduct business as usual? Culture of DEMOCRATIC corruption is more appropriate. Pelosi has me doubled over with hysterical laughter when she pounds her fist about her dedication to ethics and "draining the swamp".
Inigo Montoya would say (to Nancy): You keep using that word "ethics". I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'm Peter Finching all over the place about this... and I hope you are, too.
Drop a line to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I'm sure Henry would love to hear from you. About Pelosi. About Feinstein.
Gupta's InfoUSA Pays Pelosi's Son (Culture of Corruption, Pelosi Style)
Sad eyes. You knew there'
July 1, 2007 - 17:32 ET by FairlightSad eyes.
You knew there'd come a day..
..when we would have to see David Brock cry.