Media Matters Unfairly Smearing Frank Luntz

Media Matters has a full blown attack going against pollster Frank Luntz simply because PBS is using him for their debate coverage and he usually works for Republicans. The attacks are damning and I decided to give them a good look by doing some digging. The attack is a farce and were I Luntz, I'd call a lawyer just for the heck of it. I doubt, as a public figure, it would do him much good. But they are trashing his reputation repeatedly with little regard for the truth.

As Media Matters has documented, Luntz's credibility has been a recurring issue. In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research reprimanded Luntz for comments he made to the media regarding his polling work on the Contract with America, according to a 2000 Salon.com article. Similarly, Washington Post polling director Richard Morin reported in 2000 that the National Council on Public Polls "censured pollster Frank Luntz for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention."

Yes, the AAPOR, of which Luntz isn't even a member, reprimanded him. But why? Media Matters doesn't tell you the whole story:

The Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) announced Wednesday that a 14 month investigation found pollster Frank Luntz violated the Association's Code of Professional Ethics and Practices.

Bottom-line, Luntz did private polling work for Newt Gingrich on his Contract With America. The media later asked questions of Luntz, so he talked to them - big deal. But the AAPOR is an organization of mostly public pollsters. Their guidelines demand the release of the methodology and details of studies. Luntz, as a private pollster who was paid for that work, rightly refused to release it. For heaven's sake, any business person will tell you confidentiality applies. That study was bought and paid for by Gingrich's organization. Luntz would have been violating his own professional ethics by releasing it, along with possibly being sued by a paying client. And the other Media Matters allegation is laughable.

Here is the entire National Council on Public Polls piece. (public versus private being the key point)

NBC News for many years was widely known for reliable news reporting. At this year’s Republican National Convention it is giving the public unreliable reports of public opinion about events at the convention. In a two-pronged assault on its own credibility NBC is reporting results of focus groups conducted by Republican pollster and consultant, Frank Luntz. On opening night of the convention he called the focus group’s utterances "representative" opinion.

Luntz is widely known for his work in behalf of Republicans. YROCK.com, a Web site and Internet service run by the National Young Republicans, sponsors the Luntz focus group. Luntz was instrumental in conducting research for the Contract With America. The American Association for Public Opinion Research found Luntz in violation of its ethics code when he repeatedly refused to make public essential facts that supported the conclusions promoted by the Newt Gingrich led GOP caucus.

Huh? Some censure. Luntz was doing focus groups, not polls and of course the utterances were representative - of the focus groups. If it was otherwise implied, that's an MSNBC editorial problem. But talk about a non-issue being mischaracterized to smear someone ... Media Matters has no shame. Luntz even predicted he'd be attacked by them. And the real problem NCPP seemed to have with Luntz is, again, that he worked for Gingrich.

Media Matters, which doesn't exactly go out of its way to disclose it's links to democrats, specifically Hillary Clinton via Podesta, is continuing its pattern of attempting to destroy anyone who thinks like, or simply works for, the Right. If you want to keep an eye on any group because it's so reckless and obviously biased as to be dangerous, it's Media Matters, not Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research. Clinton and liberal front group Media Matters, also pushing the Fairness Doctrine, is increasingly Stalin-esque in its attacks and needs to be watched very carefully and eventually run into the ground.

Comments

[Vince Riehl]

Dude, you got issues, you need to call me, My name is Vince, (985)-537-8338.

[Ron Teeter]

I want to thank you for alerting me to Frank Luntz's participation in the upcoming Democratic forum and for thus giving me the opportunity to voice my objections concerning his presence to PBS. Thanks again.

[Robert]

Fred,

Cute line about me digging despotism, but you're confused. I hate Cheney.

[TimR]

Fred Beloit said: "You said Bush said "imminent threat". I said he never said that."

You are flat out wrong. Apparently, you didn't hear or read Bush say this:

"We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html

It was him, Rumsfeld, Rice, and all the other neocons that was out on the sunday talk shows, before the war started, whipping up fear in the American people, using lies.

[Robert]

I didn't realize socialist regimes endorsed an official language.
That's another good reason to be against socialism.

[Robert]

Socialism has failed in practice (see the USSR 1990s).

Conservatism has failed in practice (see the US 2000s).

Are you ready to try something else?

[Fred Beloit]

Yes, seek, that is their history.

[seekeronos]

(only to replace it with 50x as many domestic police agencies)

[seekeronos]

Even worse, Socialists tend to be even worse globalists (for differing reasons) than the Bush and the Corporate Cronies(TM) tend to be.

Under a socialist regime, we'd be speaking Spanish and Arabic as the official languages and the present torrent of illegals would become a tsunami from all the ends of the earth, especially Greater Islamia.

Not to mention not only surrending and retreating from the M.E., but likely disbanding the Department of Defense altogether.

[Fred Beloit]

You bet, Robert Stalin, but it won't be as easy as you think. I think, and experience has shown, most Americans really don't want Socialism. Socialism often comes with despotism, and you seem like the kind of guy who would really dig that. BTW welfare reform has been a great success just like the tax cuts.

[Robert]

Fred Beloit,
Who cares what Bill Clinton said? How is it that at all relevant to W lying?
Clinton was a terrible President. Not Reagan, W terrible (how could he be), but not good nonetheless. Remember Welfare reform?

Is this how right-wingers argue all the time?
"You said my guy is full of shit, I can't argue that truth, but I know other people who are full of shit too!" or "sure the US condones torture, but other countries torture just as bad". This why I say the only people who compare W to Saddam are right-wingers. They think the comparison negates their guys war crimes.
They don't.

Right-wingers are into accountability...for the poor and powerless. Accountability goes out the window to the Right once its someone rich and powerful.

It is, however, an absolute 100% pleasure watching Conservatism and Republicanism circling the porcelain bowl.
As Americans, let's make sure we put the lid down so we never have to deal with their shit again.

[Fred Beloit]

Oh, just one more thing, one more ingredient for a special fruitcake. Read this link: http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

[Fred Beloit]

Goodbye nowink, llama, ziffy, yyy. I've had enough of you today.

[Fred Beloit]

Fruitcake, fruitcake, fruitcake here. Not just for Christmas anymore. Fruitcake also known as yellowcake, who knows why.

[Fred Beloit]

These Lefties sure are busy these days with their plans for ridding workers of the right to a secret ballot in union elections (defeated), Kennedy's immigration bill (defeated), efforts to censor radio broadcasts (to be defeated), refusing to let an objective news network, Fox, moderate one of their candidate debates, and now the really needless smearing of Mr Luntz.

[nowingker]

The president's remarks yesterday came as evidence emerged that the administration had information that seemed to guarantee that Iraq probably could not acquire nuclear material from Niger. A four-star general, who was asked to go to Niger last year to inquire about the security of Niger's uranium, told The Washington Post yesterday that he came away convinced the country's stocks were secure. The findings of Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr. were passed up to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- though it was unclear whether they reached officials in the White House.

A spokesman for Myers said last night that the general has "no recollection of the information" but did not doubt that it had been forwarded to him. "Given the time frame of 16 months ago, information concerning Iraq not obtaining uranium from Niger would not have been as pressing as other subjects," said Capt. Frank Thorp, the chairman's spokesman.

In an interview, Fulford said he came away "assured" that the supply of "yellowcake" was kept secure by a French consortium. Both Fulford, then deputy commander of the U.S. European Command and his commander, Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, said the issue did not surface again, although they were both routinely briefed on weapons proliferation in Africa. "I was convinced it was not an issue," Fulford said.

Fulford was asked by the U.S. ambassador to Niger, BarbroOwens-Kirkpatrick, to join her at the meeting with Niger's President Mamadou Tandja on Feb. 24, 2002. "I was asked to impress upon the president the importance that the yellowcake in Niger be under control," Fulford said. "I did that. He assured me. He said the mining operations were handled through a French consortium" and therefore out of the Niger government's control. Owens-Kirkpatrick, reached by phone, declined to comment.

Fulford's impressions, while not conclusive, were similar to those of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA in February 2002 to interview Niger officials about the uranium claim and came away convinced it was not true.

The charge that Iraq was seeking to buy nuclear material in Africa was based mainly on documents that the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded this March were forged. Before an October 2002 speech by Bush, the CIA succeeded in removing a reference to an Iraq-Niger connection because of doubts about the intelligence.

The charge was revived for the State of the Union speech in January but referred to Africa generally and attributed the information to the British, even though the CIA had expressed reservations to the British about including some of the information in its public dossier on Iraq.

In that speech, Bush stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Since last Monday, the administration has offered changing explanations for that statement. At first, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the statement was simply wrong because it "was based and predicated on the yellowcake from Niger."

On Friday, Bush and top aides said the CIA approved the inclusion of those words, and CIA Director George J. Tenet took responsibility. Yet Bush aides have argued in recent days that the statement may, in fact, prove to be correct. Officials said Sunday the British had sources other than the forged documents, but they have declined to reveal them.

Yesterday Bush defended the charge as he fielded questions after a meeting in the Oval Office with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. "I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence," he said. "And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence. And I am absolutely convinced today, like I was convinced when I gave the speeches, that Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction, and that our country made the right decision."

The president again noted that his speech was approved by the CIA and suggested that any doubts about the charge came after the speech. "The thing that's important to realize is that we're constantly gathering data," he said. "Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech."

Bush's remarks added to contradictions that have been presented by administration officials as they have sought to explain the use of the uranium charge in the State of the Union speech.

Bush's communications director, Dan Bartlett, said last week that Bush was not angry to learn the charge was based on flawed information. Bush himself has voiced no regret or irritation in public.

But at his briefing yesterday, Fleischer described a displeased Bush. "I assure you, the president is not pleased," he said. "The president, of course, would not be pleased if he said something in the State of the Union that may or may not have been true and should not have risen to his level."

Also, Bartlett, discussing the State of the Union address, said last week that "there was no debate or questions with regard to that line when it was signed off on." But on Friday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said there was "discussion on that specific sentence, so that it reflected better what the CIA thought." Rice said "some specifics about amount and place were taken out." Tenet said Friday that CIA officials objected, and "the language was changed."

Fleischer said yesterday Rice was not referring to the State of the Union reference but to Bush's October speech given in Cincinnati -- even though Rice was not asked about that speech. Fleischer said that while the line cut from the October speech was based on the Niger allegations, he said the State of the Union claim was based on "additional reporting from the CIA, separate and apart from Niger, naming other countries where they believed it was possible that Saddam was seeking uranium."

But Fleischer's words yesterday contradicted his assertion a week earlier that the State of the Union charge was "based and predicated on the yellowcake from Niger." Rice was asked a month ago about Bush's State of the Union uranium claim on ABC's "This Week" and replied: "The intelligence community did not know at the time or at levels that got to us that there was serious questions about this report." But senior administration officials acknowledged over the weekend that Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used in the October speech, four months before the State of the Union address.

CIA officials raised doubts about the Niger claims, as Tenet outlined Friday. The last time was when "CIA officials reviewing the draft remarks" of the State of the Union "raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues," Tenet's statement said. "Some of the language was changed."

The change included using British intelligence as the source of the information. The CIA, however, continued to doubt the reliability of the British claim.

---------------

In other words, there were multiple sources which said that Saddam Hussein didn't try to buy yellowcake from Niger and a single dubious source that said he did and lo and behold Bush went with the single source that told him what he wanted to hear.

Liar, liar pants on fire.

[nowingker]

Yes, he lied, repeatedly and with gusto about everything having to do with Iraq and why we invaded, what the evidenced 'proved' and what the threat was.

Wrong about the yellowcake? Give me a break. It was in his state of the union speech and it NEVER HAPPENED.

[Fred Beloit]

OK now, winkler, repeat after me: "President Bush did not LIE about WMD in Iraq."

[Fred Beloit]

But winkie, you could have saved all this additional effort if you hadn't said Bush said it. BTW you are also wrong about yellowcake, but there won't be any point in demonstrating this to you because you will only obfuscate matters.

[nowingker]

You are trying to argue a technical point, kind of like Bill Clinton claiming he didn't lie about Monica Lewinsky, his comments while 'technically' not a lie were intended to deceive and so were the Bush Administration's...it doesn't matter whether George Bush himself said the word 'imminent'..is there a qualitative difference between 'urgent' and imminent or does it not count when his people ALWAYS responded in the affirmative to questions about whether or not Iraq was an imminent threat?

Only if you are looking for legaleze excuses instead of facing the fact that the Bush Administration lied to the country about Iraq and why we invaded.

It doesn't matter what Bill Clinton said about Saddam Hussein since he never invaded Iraq, this is another in a long, long line of winger excuses.

[Fred Beloit]

winkie, w-i-n-k-i-e, w--i--n--k--i--e. You said Bush said "imminent threat". I said he never said that. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that. Now, Robert, since you joined in, and if I had the authority, which I don't, I would say welcome, since you joined in may I ask if you took the link above to listen to Bill Clinton laying the groundwork for the intelligence on Iraq that they had WMD? That is to say this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysmwASJKCDc

[nowingker]

Nah, I don't think these were the reasons we invaded Iraq. We are already getting the UAE's oil and the Saudi oil, we didn't need to spend a trillion dollars to get Iraqi oil by force. Nor did we need to start a war in order to funnel more billions to Haiburtant and Bechtel. Same on China.

Now, I suppose if you want to find the most clumsy, destructive and stupid way to accomplish all of those things, invading Iraq would be high on the list, and I try never to undererstimate the stupidity of the Bush people, but I think they invaded Iraq because they naively believed they could install Chalabi as the 'democratically elected president' and that the country would bhe so thankful for American money and know how there would be no resistance beyond a handful of Saddam's top generals and that a US friendly Iraq with Western $$ flowing into it would be the best antidote to Islamic extremism and Iranian expansionism it would also cut off another source of funding for the Palestinians.

They thought it would be a cakewalk, just like they told us.

Bush and the neocons are not smarter or more devious than they appear, they are exactly as naive and stupid as they seem to be.

[Robert]

WMDs were NOT the REASON we went to war.
They were the EXCUSE for going to war.

If you want to think about the REASONS, try these:
Oil
China
$6 billion no bid contracts for Halliburton
Bechtel
The Carlyle Group

The media is complicit.

[nowingker]

This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

[nowingker]

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
- White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."

- President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."

- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."

- President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."

- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

[nowingker]

Apology for what?

Well, let's see, EVERYONE in the country knows that the 16 words on yellowcake uranium were in the State of the Union, I have posted about 15 excerpts from Bush and Cheney speeches on the the non existant link to Al Quaeda, I refer you to Colin Powell's UN speech on the mobile weapons labs.

Just like a winger, when he gets faced with the facts he pretends there isn't any 'proof' of the facts even though he knows there is.

[Fred Beloit]

Know what an implied untruth is winkie? You wrote: "Can you give me a link where Bill Clinton invaded Iraq based on the notion that the WMD posed an imminent threat to the United States?" The implied lie in this statement is that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. But he never said that. And anyway, I don't have to chowe you no stinkin' badges. Besides why should I be required to give you links when there is not one in your statement above? Now where is my apology?

[nowingker]

Can you give me a link where Bill Clinton invaded Iraq based on the notion that the WMD posed an imminent threat to the United States?

Didn't think so.

Saddam posed an imminet threat to the U.S.
True or false?
False

Saddam attempted to acquire yellow cake uranium from Niger.
True or false?
False.

Saddam had mobile weapons labs.
True or false?
False.

Saddam would have a nuclear bomb within less than a decade.
True or false?
False.

Saddam had a decade long, operational, supportive relationship with Al Quada.
True or false?
False.

That enough lies for ya?

[Fred Beloit]

" Afterward, take the towel off you head, face Mecca and say: "You were right Fred. I apologize." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysmwASJKCDc . This link records Bill Clinton laying the groundwork for the belief that Saddam had WMD. But when the current President said exactly the same thing at a later time, the nutroots and wacky fringe of the Left said, and ,worse, continue to say, Bush lied. Clinton says = OK. Bush says = lie. Where is my apology you smelly Llama? Looks like you're going to have to change your screen name again.

[Fred Beloit]

Hey, hey, Iguana. Where's my apologiky?

[IslamoLlama]

Hey now, Frank Luntz makes a very valid arguement that basically states "Democrats are almost always wrong, but when their right, they're not as right as Republicans." It works in every situation and is backed up by a truckload of push-polls and AEI research. Frank Luntz is just trying to help the Democrats out, by suggesting they talk, vote, and act like Republicans. He's a biased, paid, Republican pollster who just happens to moonlight as an unbiased, unpaid, nonpartisan pundit.

It's just like when James Carville gets on CNN and chats with Wolf Blitzer, completely setting aside his mantle as a chief, paid political advisor to Hillary Clinton, and dolling out completely non-partisan opinions that just coincidentally happen to support all of HRC's platforms. There's no deception here, even though Blitzer always seems to neglect mentioning that Carville is a Clinton operative. And if Carville hasn't done anything wrong, why would anyone go after an equally ethical Frank Luntz? Right?

[jay k.]

luntz is a partisan hack only slightly more credible than comedians limbaugh, o'really, and hannity. he's just as entitled to his opinions and to make a living as anyone else...but let's call a spade a spade.

[madmatt]

"That study was bought and paid for by Gingrich's organization"....gosh no wonder the results were so favorable to Newts point of view. All AAPOR did was point out that if you can't or won't prove your results...then they aren't all that trustworthy!

[Buzzy]

That's OK Dan, if they get the fairness doctrine we have plans to make them wish they'd never got out of bed. Every movie made by an actor that supported the DEMs (or director etc.) can be labeled and twisted in "fairness", we can kick half the left wing shows off of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC all based solely on political donations and support. They'll wish they hadn't and they know it.