Tavis Smiley Attacks Media Matters and David Brock

[MagickMuffin]

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.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706280006?offset=20&show=1#comments

I watched the forum last night and thought it was the best one so far.

However, I find it appalling that Tavis would attack Media Matters and David Brock specifically for trying to inform the public of Luntz the Putz GOP ties and his way of transforming the "meaning of the words" into a negative spin.
David Brock at one time did the same thing that Luntz does, spinning half truths, smearing the opponents with whatever LIES you can get away with at the time and if you are ever confronted for it, you LIE about that....

Sound familiar!

David Brock got tired of the game. He woke up and decided to ask forgiveness for his pursuit of the Clinton's, and has worked EVER since to expose the media's role in misinforming the public. It IS the media's responsibilty to inform us with useful information, certainly not the level of discourse that gets passed off as news. Instead we have to continue to keep track of how the media IS not doing their jobs, by being watchdogs. We shouldn't have to waste our valuable time researching the deception, misinformation, and the "talkers" that they receive over the fax from "unnamed sources within the senior WH staff." ( Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge, know whatahmean, say no more? )

That's why Media Matters, and why David Brock does what he does! Because IT MATTERS...

For Tavis to behave this way is very revealing. I don't understand why he would pursue this mode of attack. Everything Media Matters has said about Luntz is true.
Also I'd like to set the record straight for Mr. Smiley because he appears to be the one who is misinformed. David Brock started out as a paid shill of the GOP, and like I mentioned before he wanted out.
David Brock didn't like the person looking back at him in the mirror. He got out and started a campaign to expose everyone involved in the game. Needless to say that has caused a swift boating campaign by the other side on Media Matters and David Brock.

Again Sound Fimiliar?!?

Let's not debate the misinformation, but attack the messenger who is shining the light on the machinations.

I posted on another thread about (the generic email I receive from PBS concerning my email to PBS/Tavis Show) and how Tavis should have Peter Hart (http://www.hartresearch.com /) as the counterpart of Luntz.

More info on Hart here: check out #16.... It list Hart Research clients
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1204084

Digby has the transcript up when Luntz was on Tavis' show.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

I generally don't ask for rec/kicks, but I think this is important and needs a little attention/exposure.

THX:hi:everyone
I hope this :rant: makes sense, I need some sleep but needed to get this out there before I go.

[Mythsaje]

1. I've listened to Tavis a time or two...

Maybe you need to send HIM a note on this too.

[Iris]

36. MagickMuffin - if you do (write him a note) please ask him to quit using the word "persons" when

"people" will suffice.

[BlueManDude]

2. "Luntz is not involved tonight"..."We have a -- just -- just Luntz" - OK Tavis.

[bermudat]

3. Tavis is about Tavis.

[Demit]

5. I think you are right about that. He is a tireless self-promoter.

And now that he's hit the big time—"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"—expect him to sound more and more like this. What a shame.

[OzarkDem]

11. He's quickly becoming another Ken Blackwell

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that many AA men, once they've had some financial success, buy into the GOP - right wing mindset. That's been going on for generations, even during the Civil War.

You can't stereotype blacks by assuming they're all Democrats, they're not.

[Demit]

45. Wha?? What's with the need to lecture about stereotyping? Who's stereotyping?

Except you, by reading that into what I said?

[OzarkDem]

4. He just lost all credibility in my view

That's nothing more than pandering to the right wing.

Well at least we know, Tavis is a right wing jerk.

[ellacott]

6. Actually Tavis in not right wing n/t

[OzarkDem]

10. Attacking David Brock?

Lying and disseminating about the Luntz polling? Using GOP talking points? Currying favor with FAUX tv?

He's right wing, alright, just good at covering it up.

[ellacott]

13. No, he's neither wing

I do agree that he's not informed about Lutz and that's surprising and disappointing. I know for a fact that he is not right wing. He doesn't hold an allegiance to either party. The Republican party ignores the black vote and the Democratic party takes them for granted. That was pointed out at the start of the debate.

[EstimatedProphet]

12. He was very pro-Bush in 2004

He would slant his shows very pro-Bush

[ellacott]

14. No he wasn't

That's not true at all.

[EstimatedProphet]

15. He sure seemed that way to me

I will admit that I'm not a regular listener, but when I did hear his show it seemed slanted to me.

[ellacott]

16. Tavis is definately not a Bush supporter

I can say this with confidence. He views are actually closer to Socialism. He supports Hugo Chavez on many issues and is very close to Jesse Jackson, Al Shaprton and Cornel West. He has little faith in the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party. He did encourage Blacks to vote for the Democratic candidate in 2000 and 2004 mainly because of the Supreme Court appointments that would be made in those years. We now see the result of those appointments.

He is definately not Pro Bush but he is respectful of both sides.

[EstimatedProphet]

17. OK

Good enough for me. :hi:

[ellacott]

18. Cool :)

I'm still surprised and disappointed in his decision regarding Lutz. This was a definate lapse in judgement.

[EFerrari]

40. This morning on WJ, he described himself as an independent

who voted issues important to him. And his responses to the wingnut callers were respectful but he didn't agree with them. :)

[babylonsister]

7. Luntz not involved, but he's polling people in the next room?

That sounds like involvement to me.

[blondeatlast]

20. And who created the questions? Hell, yes, Luntz was in it up to his chubby

red cheeks--the ones on his face.

[babylonsister]

22. I was hoping those were the ones you were referring to!

:D

[blondeatlast]

26. Thanks--I needed a laugh (I hadn't thought of the implications there--yikes!). nt

[JNelson6563]

8. Tavis contradicts himself

No Lutz (the Putz) but only Lutz is doing the polling.

I see.

Yeah, David Brock, that asshole. Not.

Julie

[hellbound-liberal]

9. I thought the debate was the best so far too but it remains to be seen how the "polling" will

turn out. I find it curious that he would involve Frank Luntz to begin with. It's a Democratic debate, why not have a Democratic pollster? I also find it strange that he is going to discuss this debate with two of the most slanted operations in the so-called mainstream media, ABC news and Tim Russert. On the positive side, he was on Democracy Now yesterday and he complemented Amy Goodman on her journalistic creds.

[BurtWorm]

19. HTo attack Brock personally for a Media Matters criticism of his show

should be beneath him. How disappointing.

[blondeatlast]

21. How very O'Reilly of him--I've heard rumors he's shopping FAUX.

Things that make ya go hmm...

[ellacott]

23. Shopping Fox?

After what he said this morning I don't think that's true. If he did, which I doubt it would be like Colmes or Wes Clark.

You guys are something else.

[jasmeel]

24. So let me get this straight. Luntz is going to collect data on what the

democratic people think and summarize it for Smiley? That sounds like the hen in the henhouse to me. How could a spinmeister like Luntz possible misrepresent anything democrats had to say?:banghead: Come on Smiley.

Does anyone know how it actually turned out. How did Luntz's effect the debate? Did the data seem skewed. Just curious.

[Morgana LaFey]

50. And just think of how much he can find out that will help the GOP

that's another piece of it For me, a big piece.

And he can skew the questions he asks too, to help get the answers he'd prefer to have.

[Lost4words]

25. Kick Kick and more kick!

After last night I am all Dennis all the time!

[Gabi Hayes]

27. does Smiley really think people can't read?....see post number 12 for details.

a kudos to the admirably persistent MADem for this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1210187#1210998

the original press release, April 4, upon which Media Matters relied, unless I'm mistaken, as they QUOTED it, is in post 28.

since the evasive Smiley can do nothing but denounce the inaccuracy/credibility of MM, without demonstrating the support for his astounding accusation, one can only infer that the April 4 PR release is the basis for said response from Smiley.

I wonder if he'd care to enlighten us as to why Media Matters was incorrectly characterizing PBS's press release.

I won't hold my breath

from their press release, as reprinted in Media MAtters:

''...immediate public feedback on the performance of the candidates will be conducted by noted pollster Frank Luntz, who will also appear on 'Tavis Smiley' on PBS the following evening to discuss his findings."

[Gabi Hayes]

28. so let's see if we can figure out what's going on here, and who's trying to clear things up,

and who's muddying the waters

from the April 4 Press Release

''...immediate public feedback on the performance of the candidates will be conducted by noted pollster Frank Luntz, who will also appear on 'Tavis Smiley' on PBS the following evening to discuss his findings."

Media Matters issues statement decrying Luntz's participation.

Smiley responds thusly:

"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.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706280006?f=h_top

Smiley goes on to reference this a bit more specifically:

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.

same link as above



Smiley's producer had THIS to say about what 'facts' somebody got wrong about Luntz's appearance, mentioning neither the erroneous information, nor whom the purveyors were. Interesting that Smiley couldn't deal with ANY factual inaccuracies from MM, the only possible one being based on PBS' own press release.



Statement from Neal Kendall, Executive Producer of Tavis Smiley

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Laurel Lambert <llambert@xxxxx>

Date: Jun 27, 2007 10:24 AM

Subject: Producer's statement on Frank Luntz on Tavis Smiley

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The following statement has been issued by Neal Kendall, executive producer of Tavis Smiley, regarding the appearance of Frank Luntz on Friday's Tavis Smiley latenight

program:

The "All American Presidential Forum on PBS" moderated by Tavis Smiley, airing this Thursday, is an unprecedented watershed event for millions of Americans who will be seeing and hearing the candidates respond to specific issues that directly affect their quality of life.

To correct some erroneous information, please note that Dr. Frank Luntz is NOT appearing on Thursday night's Presidential forum.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200706270006#20070628

if the erroneous information didn't come from you initial press release, WHERE did it originate?

so who looks like they're trying to weasel out of the situation in which they've gotten themselves, along with casting aspersions on Media Matters, whose only apparent misstep is QUOTING the original Press Release. Note how Smiley and Co. don't refute ANYTHING, really, MM has to say. Not one specific instance of MM's being incorrect, even about when Luntz would appear. They're too CHICKEN to mention that, because they know the mantel of blame falls upon THEIR shoulders, and theirs alone.

Other emailers, both here and on the Media Matters site, have asked PBS for an explanation of why their initial press release is different from the Smiley Producer's revision, and have gotten no answer.

they OWE it to the public to explain the discrepancy between their April 4 press release, and the 'clearing up' by Kendall on 6/27.

that's the next step for anyone concerned about PBS credibility, cause it sure stinks on ice right now.

[Gabi Hayes]

29. somebody needs to contact democracy now, as well. Amy Goodman allowed

Smiley to end the show with a long screed which similarly dissed Media Matters, spouting the same disinfo as in his other rants, while also refusing to deal at all with the substance of MM accusations.

she didn't say a word to him except, ta ta, after his crazy rant.

[EFerrari]

32. Wow, I watched that interview but managed to miss that.

Well, I can't email her show because I'm already bugging them about something else but the addy is
mail @ democracynow.org

[Gabi Hayes]

35. somebody posted the transcript here, and it was the VERY LAST

segment of the show, unremarked upon by Amy

I dunno if she followed up on it, but I hope she reads MM. His rant was disgusting in its disingenuousness, but I was disappointed that she let it go

[EFerrari]

37. Sometimes she heads into the last few minutes at a gallop

because she has to sign off. And she uses MM as a source so I'm sure she or her crew will see this.

[Gabi Hayes]

39. that's what I figured, but she really needs to address this

I'll be very disappointed if she doesn't

[Gabi Hayes]

30. if you email them, include this

http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0397/party.html

You are close friends with House Speaker Newt Gingrich. He's had some problems lately. Will he survive? What's the spin?
It's not spinning! Newt is the most controversial politician of his age because he is the most significant.

I've had the opportunity to get to know him on a very personal basis, to spend weekends with him flying around the country. He is the equivalent of the the greatest professor I have ever had. He's the greatest mind I've ever met. And even those who disagree with his politics at the most fundamental level acknowledge that he is the most brilliant political figure they've come in contact with, and that he is absolutely the best listener around.

..........

guess they missed this, too

It is said about statistics that if you torture them long enough, they'll confess to just about anything. Isn't this true of polls as well?

How long did it take you to write that question? Well, there are good polls and bad polls, and often polls can be misleading. The key lies in the methodology.

[DemGa]

31. Funny they keep refering to Luntz as a "pollster"

and leave out that Luntz is a well-known message framer for the Republican party.

Tavis is looking pretty naive here.

[Gabi Hayes]

33. not naive at all....another word comes to mind.

there's a link somewhere, maybe in this thread, to the interview he did w/Putz in February

he introduced him w/o reference to his pug provenance, but did refer to it in the body of the interview

he's VERY aware of it, has been, and will never make the reasons for covering it up known to the public, because the answer only involves venality. perhaps he's so narcissistic that his employment of Luntz is only right and just, and that nothing untoward could ever be inferred by other right thinking people.

this dose of reality is a good thing, I guess, but I don't think it's going to affect his slide to the dark side. he knows which side his bread is being apple buttered

so does the entire PBS network; it's just being made crystal clear as more and more of its board/leadership/programmers are being unveiled as unreconstructed corporate whores

[ellacott]

34. As I mentioned in another post

The debate was discussed intently at a black messageboard that I frequent. Not one post about Lutz.

I do agree that Tavis appears naive when it comes to Lutz but it's funny and a little sad at the same time. When you look at the responses of the white and black and the focus of the forum there is a clear difference.

It's very insightful.

[Gabi Hayes]

38. got a link to that site? is it about the debate itself? I've read here

that the moderators did a MUCH better job than any of the previous ones

thanks

AFA Luntz, they may not be aware of the controversy, but if you check the posts, here, Smiley and his producer are CLEARLY being less than honest. Far from it. The ONLY 'fact' that Media Matters got "wrong" was concerning Luntz's originally appearing AT the debate itself, or immediately thereafter. They got it "wrong" by quoting the Feb. 4 Press release, which said he WOULD be providing immediate feedback. Somewhere between then and two days ago, things changed, and Smiley/Kendall did not address the discrepancy, only alluded to misperceptions, without citing ANY details.

Smiley further accused MM of getting various facts wrong, without DETAILING one single fact, aside from the one his PRESS RELEASE apparently got wrong.

He went on to smear MM, IMO, in a most unjustifiable manner.

I hope you check this out, because the disingenuousness of Smiley's stance in this controversy is appalling, sadly in the same vein of Gwen Ifill, who's MUCH much worse than Smiley. She's nothing but a stenographer for the administration, who also loathes MM for routing out the way in which she acts as such.

[ellacott]

41. Wow, you all keep missing the point

I don't argue with anything you said about Lutz and the bad way that Tavis handled it. That's not a "firing offense" to me and many other people.

I care more about the forum/debate itself and the issues that were discussed than I do about Lutz. Many people feel that way.

[DemGa]

44. The larger issue as I see it is validating Luntz

Luntz is a message crafter for the Republican side and attempting to pass him off as a 'pollster' is irresponsible. The real shame is that most people will not be aware of Luntz' activities and will accept his presence at this forum in good faith.

[Gabi Hayes]

46. not missing the point. the POINT is that he's been deeply dishonest.

that's a firing offense for me, in that I don't trust a word he says from now on.

and if Hillary is the choice of those who watched the debate, we're totally screwed, cause Luntz and his pals WANT her to get the nomination. her irrevocable negatives are unprecedented for any candidate who's ever gotten the nomination, and after the smear machine ratchets up during the campaign proper, it'll make today's wordplay look like beanbag.

now do you see where I'm coming from?

[SoCalDem]

49. It's about legitimizing right wingers.. That's why we now have Glenn Beck on CNN

and why Ann Coulter is invited on Good morning America and why Tucker carlson has his own show on MSNBC and the same for Scarborough..and why Pat Buchanan is a "go-to guy" for MSNBC..

legitimizing their agenda MAKES them suddenly mainstream..

Their ideas are WAAAAY out there, but by being included, they become acceptable.

I cannot believe that tavis could not find a democratic polling company that has the same type of gizmo as the Luntz-o-meter 2007™

[MagickMuffin]

55. This is in the OP, but easliy overlooked I suppose

I posted on another thread about (the generic email I receive from PBS concerning my email to PBS/Tavis Show) and how Tavis should have Peter Hart (http://www.hartresearch.com /) as the counterpart of Luntz.

More info on Hart here: check out #16.... It list Hart Research clients
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I watched several of Hart's focus groups during the last election cycle. He is very fair and doesn't lead. He'll pose a question, listen to the answers and ask follow ups to why someone believes the way they do.

I enjoyed everyone of his focus study groups that C-SPAN aired. Check out the above links....

[depakid]

42. "consider the source"

Republican Broadcasting Corporation

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?pid=2350

[quiet.american]

43. Tavis, is you is or is you ain't?

This is the Tavis quote I can't get around:

First he says:

Luntz is not involved tonight....

Then he goes on to say

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.

:shrug: Sounds like involvement to me.

[Karenina]

47. BOOOOOO, Tavis. BOOOOOO!!!

:-( :-( :-(

[WhiteTara]

48. are you sure Brock is truly reformed?

"David Brock at one time did the same thing that Luntz does, spinning half truths, smearing the opponents with whatever LIES you can get away with at the time and if you are ever confronted for it, you LIE about that...."

I do find it curious that Luntz is doing this, but I think that he may have "gotten religion" for giving us the monkey and heartless and is trying to balance the scale...or he is so evil that he is blatantly trying to turn the screw tighter. :shrug:

[SidDithers]

51. Did you read Blinded by the Right?..nt

Sid

[Morgana LaFey]

52. Luntz knows very well which side of the bread is buttered -- and by

whom. I don't see him so much as evil himself as in the service of evil and in denial about the true results of his actions.

[Gabi Hayes]

54. he's not in denial. unless he's changed his tune since his appearance on Maher

a month or so ago.

he's one of the most transparently cynical shills I've ever seen.

you should have seen his faux deferential "folksy humor"-laden attempts to downplay his usually upfront, hard-right stances

it was funny to see the authentic bone-bred, ideologue version of Luntz get the better of the controlled, rehearsed version he's trying to foist upon the ill-informed

[robinlynne]

53. agreed in full.

[MagickMuffin]

56. Anyone wanting to show support of Media Matters and David Brock

Then here is Tavis Smiley's email. I plan on writing a letter to let him know that I am disappointed in his decisions. Both in having Frank the PUTZ Luntz as a legitimate "pollster" and his attack on MM and David.

I really don't understand why he has chosen this path.:shrug::shrug:

Tavis Smiley
E-mail: [e-mail]