Tavis Smiley is on the Washington Journal right now. .

[annabanana]

I just turned it on so I don't know if anyone has challenged him on using Luntz to do polling on the Democratic forum. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1209720

[soothsayer]

1. watch last night's debate online

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/video.html

[MADem]

3. Or watch it on CSPAN this afternoon, if you have that channel.

I think Brian Lamb said two thirty, but check, because I am not positive.

[MADem]

2. I stopped watching a short while ago, and no, no one did.

Tavis seems to have his hand in the corporate lion's mouth...that's just the sense I get from him.

[madame defarge]

4. Regardless, Tavis did an excellent job last night.

The difference in the tone of the debate was astounding. CNN & MSNBC could learn a ton from Travis.

[MADem]

6. The debate was very well done. I do think Tavis has a little something something going on, though

His February interview with Frank Luntz, which I saw when it was first broadcast, and which was discussed yesterday, was a bit, well, troubling. Barely any mention was made of Luntz's affiliations with the RNC, and no mention was made of his attack dog politics, or any of the sleazy games he played.

That whole Luntz business is bothersome. Why would Tavis first, lie about what PBS had intially intended to do with the guy, and get mad at David Brock for pointing it out?

There's some odd...accomodation....going on there. Is Tavis rehabilitating Luntz, getting cheap polling services from him in exchange for touting that crappy book the bastard wrote?

Something is OFF with that guy. I can't put my finger on it, but something is off.

[blondeatlast]

10. Luntz is trying hard to appear not to be partisan.

He's been mentioning that he'd do this work for the Dems if they paid him enough when his partisanship is discussed. This was particularly apparent when he was on Real Time with Bill Maher about a month ago.

It's BS--and that's why I e-mailed PBS about it. My fear is that someone will fall for it and he'll stab us in the back with a big fat grin between his chubby red cheeks all the while.

He's NOT our friend and he's not friendly.

[MADem]

12. Well, I emailed PBS as well. And they lied to me. So I emailed them again.

And I asked them, politely, why they lied to me. They had said they NEVER intended to use Frank Luntz after the program. Turns out that wasn't true.

My second email:

Dear Viewer Services;

Did you (PBS) change your mind about using Frank Luntz in the post-debate discussions? Your April news release said that Mr. Luntz would appear immediately following the debate:

''...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."

Can you explain why there was a change in the use of Mr. Luntz? Was it in response to objections from fair-minded people? Your response to me infers that I was mistaken, and that you never intended for Mr. Luntz to appear after the debate, yet your own press release in April said otherwise.

I await your clarification. Thank you in advance for your response.

Sincerely,
--------------------------------------

Their chickenshit response:

Thank you for writing to PBS. Viewer input is very important to us and every
message we receive is read and forwarded to the appropriate department. Due
to the large volume of e-mail, we cannot guarantee a personal response to all
inquiries. Please read on though, because your questions may be addressed in
this message.

Want to know when a program will air, or if it will be rebroadcast? Your local
station can tell you! Visit http://www.pbs.org/stationfinder/ to see your
local program schedule or contact your PBS member station.

Looking for the website or mailing address for your favorite show? You can
find contact information for most PBS Programs at
http://www.pbs.org/search/search_contacts.html

Looking for the mailing address of Ken Burns? Wondering why some PBS programs
aren't closed-captioned? Hoping to contact your local station? Find the
answers to these questions and many more--perhaps yours--at our Frequently
Asked Questions page online at: http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_faqs.html

Interested in purchasing video products? Visit shopPBS
at:http://www.shoppbs.com or call PBS Home Video at (800) 645-4PBS. If you are
an educator, visit Shop PBS for Teachers at: http://www.shoppbs.com/teachers
or call PBS Video at [phone]. You can find contact information for
shopPBS at: http://www.shoppbs.org/helpdesk/

Again, thank you for your interest in PBS. We hope you continue to enjoy and
support the wide variety of programs and related services available from your
local PBS station.


PBS Viewer Services.

[Gabi Hayes]

19. what did I TELL you? heh

non-answer answer

surprised?

they realize they can't get away with this arrogant behavior the way they could when people didn't have a means to CALL them instantly, and in unignorable volume, when they were caught LYING

interesting, isn't it?

[MADem]

23. They aren't getting away with it, though. See, we're STILL talking about it.

People EXPECT a higher standard from PBS. They can't pull the Fox/NBC/ABC/CBS bullshit. We look at those news venues, shrug, turn off the Paris/Anna Nicole/Natalee coverage, and call it all crap.

But PBS? We expect better from them. Despite the fact that the GOP have done some serious damage to them since BushCo took over.

[OzarkDem]

16. Luntz involvement negates good debate

Tavis is obviously only in it for the money.

[MADem]

20. Luntz will be on Tavis's show tonight. They dumped him from the post-debate analysis that they

had originally intended to do immediately following the effort.

[ellacott]

5. Tavis is polished but he's not a corporate whore

He actually has been a nemesis for some corporations. One time there were reports of discriminatory practices with Comp USA. Tavis called for a letter writing campaign and a boycott of that store. It was very successful. The owner of Comp USA came on the radio in an attempt to end the actions against him. He made changes that addressed those issues along with other concessions. He has been threatend with legal action by other corporations that he has gone against.

Brian Lamb asked him this morning why should Republicans do his debate at a Black college when the Black Caucus cancelled their debate on Fox. Tavis said, you have to ask the candidates but he thinks it's because Fox is not perceived as Fair and Balanced. Brian asked Tavis if he thought Fox was Fair and Balanced, Tavis said no.

[MADem]

7. What can one make of his chummy relationship with Frank Luntz? nt

[ellacott]

8. So from that you deduced that he's going to Fox

I don't know if his relationship is "chummy". I don't know what his relationship with him is. I do agree that it was bad judgement to have him anywhere associated with this debate. But to come to the conclusion that he is a right wing shill is wrong.

I know more about Tavis to even think that he was a right wing supporter. If you were willing you would find that Tavis is a fascinating person that recognizes the game that's played on both sides.

The Left has their issues just like the Right does.

[Gabi Hayes]

9. read the interview transcript with Luntz. see how he defends Walmart

immediately after saying he's not trying to defend Walmart.
even Luntz isn't buying it. he takes him apart for his disingenuousness. very interesting exchange

you be the judge

I don't trust him a bit

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200702/20070207_luntz.html

[ellacott]

11. Is this the only introduction you have to Tavis Smiley?

Have you heard of Tavis Smiley before.

I listened to that clip and didn't perceive the walmart comments in the way you've posted. I do understand his disclaimer.

It's funny how so many DUers are so suspicious of Tavis. It's not important that he gets the trust of the members on this board.

[MADem]

14. Well, I've been watching Tavis for years, and he's CHANGED. IMO.

He's not the same guy he used to be. He certainly is smoother, especially when dealing with corporatists, and he lacks the old fire he used to have.

He may not be a member of the congregation of the Church of Tim Russert, but I'm guessing he's attended a few services.

[ellacott]

17. Oh he's definately changed

He had a very successful program on NPR but he ended it when there were issues about his show being "too black". It didn't matter that he had one of the most popular shows on and they always met or exceeded their fundaraising goals during his broadcast time.

Tavis also began changing with the publication of his last book(before The Covenant).

[MADem]

21. That was around the time that NPR started getting "too GOP" IIRC...! nt

[ellacott]

24. I agree n/t

[MADem]

13. Huh? Who said anything about Fox? Not me.

Look, your mileage varies. That's fine. I don't insist that you agree with me.

I'm going with my gut here. There's something funny going on with Tavis lately. What it is, I don't know. But something isn't right.

In my opinion.

[ellacott]

15. My mistake, that was intended for another post

Someone else was saying they heard a rumor that Tavis was going to Fox.

Tavis has issues about this Presidential election, the partisanship and the loyalty factor.

Tavis really doesn't care about either party. I think that's what's been coming through lately. He's tired of the Dems just like he's tired of the Repubs. I don't blame him.

[MADem]

18. Professor Kim Pearson, who blogged the debate, found the Luntz choice "odd" as well

His chumminess with the guy, to me, anyway, really strikes a wrong note. It could be simply that they are pals because they both hate Boehner, I dunno...but my gut usually doesn't lie. Something does not seem right to me.

We'll see how well they get along on his program tonight, I suppose.

I hadn't heard any Fox rumors. After all, Fox already has their "Duty Negro." I can't imagine them wanting a spare! (I suppose I'd better pull out the :sarcasm: icon, otherwise someone perusing the thread will read this and think I was serious....)

What the professor said:
http://professorkim.blogspot.com/search/label/Tavis%20Smiley

. Luntz is a so-called "pollster-pundit" with a long list of powerful business and Republican political clients who has been criticized for deceptive practices. He came to prominence for his use of technology that helps clients fine-tune their messages by collecting instant feedback on audience reactions to each phrase. He was reprimanded for his unwillingness to reveal polling data that he said showed widespread public support for the 1994 Republican Contract With America.

During the 2004 Presidential race, he was dropped by MSNBC after it was revealed that he was still doing political work for the Republican Party. In recent years, he has reportedly fallen out of favor with GOP, calling its current leaders "an ethical morass," among other epithets. A Feb. 2007 article by Bill Berkowitz for MediaTransparency.org says, "Luntz, who has been a major player in crafting the great partisan divide in Washington, takes no responsibility for it." .... Even without his shady past, Luntz seems like an odd choice as an analyst. I don't see any evidence that he is familiar with the issues or constituencies at the core of this particular debate. Ronald Walters or Jennifer Hochshild would have made a lot more sense. We already have too much emphasis on candidates' performance and strategy. How about analysts who can provide some context and critique on the issues instead?

[ellacott]

22. It would be good if we could merge threads

I have not made any attempts to condone Lutz. I've posted that it's disappointing. I probably won't be watching how they get along this evening because it's not that important to me.

I never watch Fox, who's the "Duty Negro" that's on there now? Sarcasm is a funny thing.

[MADem]

26. Juan Williams. I could just see if Tavis joined Fox--Newt or some other

white Republican idiot-fathead would probably, in "Well, They All Look Alike" fashion, waste NO time calling him "Juan!!!"



It IS disappointing about Luntz, and troubling that even with all the BS that has been kicked up about it, there's still no acknowledgement on Tavis's web page that the guy is a noted REPUBLICAN pollster. If you read the bio he's got up about the guy, and rely just on that, it would be so easy to be fooled. http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200706/20070629.html

[ellacott]

27. Oh, him

I had put him out of my memory. That's funny. He has lost so much credibility.

I would be terribly disapointed if Tavis turned in a Juan. What's so very different about Tavis is that his focus is not on politics as much as civil rights issues. Many blacks are not pleased with the Democratic party yet this is always overlooked. It's a given that blacks will vote democratic so there is little more than lip service given to them.

Even now, the focus in on Lutz and not what was discussed at the forum.

Tavis will never walk lock step with the Democrats and I'm glad of that. The Republicans have nothing for him because he would have to renounce his relationships with Harry Belefonte, Cornell West, Al Sharpton and others. Tavis knows he's not a lone ranger.

It's funny, I'm also on a black messageboard and there are some intense discussions about the forum. Not one person has mentioned Lutz and these are also politically astute people.

[MADem]

28. I don't think anyone expects Tavis to do a lockstep, really. I just think they expect him to

hop out of the bed that Luntz is laying in. He's not helping his own situation by having Luntz, and only Luntz, as his pollster...AND he's going on "Meet the PotatoHead" (Russert) this weekend--we'll see what happens there; what questions are asked, or if it's a big Love Fest. If the latter, I will fear for Tavis's soul...Russert is a Charter Member of the "Gone Over To The Dark Side" club.

He also didn't help himself with his pretty ugly dig at David Brock. Brock doesn't have a record of flipping between liberal and conservative. He was brought up in a strict conservative home, was gay as a goose and completely closeted, and he went down the conservative path in an effort to please his parents. When he woke up and smelled the coffee, he flipped (and came out of his closet) and never flopped back again. That was a cheap shot Tavis threw (it's on Leher's show--excerpted here) http://mediamatters.org/items/200706280006?f=h_top and really, beneath him. I get, from that exchange, that Tavis is a bit thin-skinned; perhaps a bit better at dishing it out than taking it, which isn't a good quality. And it's new, too--something I haven't seen in him previous to this business with Luntz.

All I can say is my gut is working overtime--something's different, and it doesn't feel right. I only hope they (meaning the RNC) didn't "Armstrong Williams" his ass--if they did, that would be a bad, bad, thing.

No one is saying that the issues aren't important. However, Tavis HAD TO KNOW -- unless he is an idiot, and he's NOT that -- what a lightning rod Luntz is to people who follow politics very closely, like most people here do.

Luntz's record goes back to the Newt Gingrich era, and it's a pretty shitty one. He's the guy who came up with all of those great GOP phrases, like "death tax" instead of estate tax, and "climate change" instead of global warming. If he were around during the Civil Rights era, he'd call segregation something like "community cohesion" and discrimination "choice patronage." Hell, if he were around during the Civil War, the bastard would call slavery something like "mandated ethnic employment." He takes hideous constructs, and makes them sound 'cute' through language. And he does it FOR Republicans. The guy is fucking EVIL. You wouldn't have a Klan member, even a former one, give the invocation at an MLK memorial, and you shouldn't have a Grade A, completely shameless, GOP water-carrier doing "analysis" of how black folk feel about the issues--because that's what he's been hired to do. It's just WRONG. And Tavis HAS to know this--it's why people can't let this issue go.

[ellacott]

29. All that is understood

I honestly do understand what you are saying about Lutz and I keep reiterating that I agree that this wasn't a good decision. I can't say it any clearer.

It's not true that "people" can't let it go. Many black people who are also politically astute aren't this upset about this.

You gut may indeed be telling you something but if it's that Tavis is going to be another Armstrong is pretty wild. That doesn't sound like someone who has listened to Tavis for years.

If you look up his political contributions they have been all to the democratic candidates.

If you find that Tavis has changed parties you will more likely find that he is part of the Socialist Party.

[MADem]

30. I certainly hope I'm wrong, I really do.

When I mentioned the Armstrong Williams connection, I wasn't implying that the two of them were at all alike, or shared any political leanings at all. I realize that Armstrong is dyed-in-the-wool GOP, and Tavis is the opposite.

What I was referring to was the fact that, not terribly long ago, the Bush administration paid Armstrong, UNDER THE TABLE, to tout NCLB in his supposedly "unbiased" columns. He got tens of thousands of dollars for shilling the program while pretending to be a journalist.

If the RNC or some other entity--the DNC, even...who knows, it could be Bloomberg for all we know--slipped the guy some money or favors to take on Luntz, with the idea that Luntz would "guide" the discussion, as Luntz does, that would be a similiar situation.

I just can't fathom why Tavis would hook up with Luntz--it makes no sense. And why did PBS lie about it when they claimed they didn't originally plan to do an immediate post-debate show? If they had said, well, we know he's affiliated with the GOP, and we wanted to keep his ass separate from the Democratic debate, people wouldn't have been so upset. But no, both PBS and Tavis dug in their heels, and that behavior is simply ... curious.

And I'm a bit surprised that twenty seven out of thirty three undecided voters in Luntz's focus group said, through Luntz, that Hillary was the flat-out winner of the debate. Like I said elsewhere on this board, I would have expected a bit more 'diversity' in the choice of winner. I don't disagree that she handed in a very strong performance, and if I had to pick a winner, I'd give it to her, but Obama took a real back seat in the focus group results, when he didn't sit so far back at the debate--per Mr. Luntz's interpretations, anyway:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2231
PBS' TAVIS SMILEY - MULTI-RACIAL FOCUS GROUP THOUGHT 'HILLARY CLINTON HAD CLEARLY WON THE DEBATE'< Good Morning America, 6/29/07 >

If Luntz picks Giuliani as the winner of the September GOP debate, through his "focus group" my alarm will go off, frankly.

But hey, I'm not asking you to feel the same way I do about this business. You clearly have a different view.

That said, I can't help feeling how I'm feeling. Something's just not right.

[ellacott]

32. What ironic is that most of people at the other message board...

Also thought Hillary won.

This was an opportunity to truly discuss the issues and the different perspectives according to race.

The focus on this board is about Lutz. The focus on other areas is the substance of what was said. I could not care less what Lutz has to say. I've formed my own opinion. Many others have formed their opinions also.

I saw many things in that forum that have not even recieved a mention here.

[Gabi Hayes]

34. Link, please? I'd like to see the discussion. I can't bring myself to

watch those things.

what did they, if anybody have to say about Kucinich, the only progressive among the candidates (OK, Gravel, maybe, but he doesn't count)

[MADem]

35. Well, this board is pretty huge. You've missed a bunch of threads that are discussing the debate

You might want to check them to see if some of your concerns are mentioned in them. And really, no one's stopping you from starting your own thread, if you'd like to put forth your viewpoints on the actual debate and aren't finding them in the threads I've listed below.

This thread is focused on just one aspect of the debate, and it, too, deserves to be covered, even if it's not your favorite subject matter. There's always that IGNORE option, if the topic is bothersome to you, too.

I did a very cursory and quick search, and found a ton of places where the performance of the candidates is being discussed. This isn't all of the threads, but enough to get you started if you want to talk about something other than Luntz. DU isn't ignoring the debate at all, apparently--we're just walking and chewing gum, able to do more than one thing at a time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3346148

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3345347

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3345525

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=296&topic_id=7073

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1208362

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1208612

There was even a live stream series of threads on it here, as we do: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1207610


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3346486

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3346765

There are more, but those should get you started. It's really not fair of you to say that "no one" here is talking about things-other-than-Luntz. It's just not true.

[Gabi Hayes]

25. excellent post, and the last sentence crystallizes EVERYTHING that is

wrong, purposely so, in election coverage by the M$M.

My ideal would be to line up the usual suspects, give them a little quiz like this:

read off the platform of each candidate, without names, and force the pundits to identify each's. I know some would be easily done, but I'd like to see them discuss what each candidate STANDS for, rather than how the obliquely mentioned stances affect their electability.

how much more time, for example, have the media spent discussing Edwards' haircut, as opposed to his health care plan?

[MADem]

31. Well, I can't take credit for it--it's from Professor Kim Pearson's blog.

She's quite astute--and she does a great job of distilling the BS down to the essential elements. I wish they had professors like her when I was coming up in my college years!

[Gabi Hayes]

33. shall I say excellent "get," then? I had some pretty good profs, back in the day,

including a really good one in social foundations of education.

he introduced us to Ellul ("Propaganda"), among others

I think Rove, etal, have made 'good' use of that book, unfortunately

and how sad is it that ~80 percent apparently go for Hillary?

are we being set up for an electoral slaughter?

are we playing into the hands of the right wing, as the other possibly viable candidates are being destroyed in the M$M, as they hold their really damaging smear material on Hillary for 2008?

there's SO much out there to be recycled; stuff from the likes of David Bossie, the Arkansas Project, the Ted Olsons, the Elves, the Schmidts, the Isikoffs, the Gerths (oops! he's alread started), the Downie crew. They're holding back so far....clearing the playing field for her, don't you think?

is it time for this yet?



always remember they DID impeach him over NOTHING. it started out as a case in which they were the VICTIMS.

I just found an old audio tape of me calling a radio show several years ago, in which I mentioned the first Whitewater Trial, in which the summary statement by the federal prosecutor named the Clintons as victims of Hale, McDougal, Tucker, and the host didn't believe me. I told him because it was almost UNREPORTED. The Washington Post NEVER mentioned it!

you think that sort of stuff isn't going to happen come election season, on an even grander scale?