2fer: IFIL disses Media Matters re LUNTZ. & WashPost continues its anti-GORE slant

[UTUSN]

The IFIL item is her taking questions. Lots of topics, lots of her anti-us.

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/06/23/DI2007062300475.html

.... Henderson, N.C.: As a PBS bigwig, can you explain the reasoning behind Frank Lutz serving as an analyst for PBS following the Democratic Debate. Why does your network expect this known Republican pollster (author of terms like "death tax" and "healthy forests initiative") to fairly evaluate candidates from a party that he has spent much of his professional life fighting against? Do y'all have any comparable Democratic pollsters signed up for the Republican debate? Thank you for your time and I hope you have a good day.

Gwen Ifill: I see Media Matters has gotten through to you too. I am always impressed how good you all are at following their mass e-mailed instructions word for word.

To your question: I am not involved with tonight's debate except as a viewer. But I have no problem with Frank Luntz's participation. Would you be objecting if they'd hired Peter Hart? ....



http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/alterman

The Assault on Reality

Eric Alterman

That Al Gore's 2000 presidential candidacy was treated unconscionably by most members of the mainstream media is not really arguable by sentient beings. The very idea that a candidate like George W. Bush--extremist, incompetent, unprepared for office, addicted to cronyism and incapable of admitting even the simplest human error--could have been held by so many reporters to be a better choice for President than the two-time Vice President, Senator, Representative and environment and nuclear weapons expert, to say nothing of his central role in the Clinton Administration's successful two-term presidency, would be laughable were its consequences less tragic. And yet in that election, the media made Al Gore out to be a liar because so many reporters chose to misreport his remarks or take them out of context. To top it off, they made a joke of their maliciousness, mocking Gore for alleged mendacities that were largely the results of their carelessness and deliberate misrepresentation. ....

Witness the Washington Post, whose reporters in 2000 ran with Republican Party press releases purporting to be Gore's own words. Amazingly, the paper's recent treatment of Gore has been even more nakedly hostile, sometimes bizarrely so. First out of the gate was Governing magazine editor Alan Ehrenhalt, writing in the paper's Sunday Book World, who chose not to focus his review on the work itself but instead offered up a stream of attacks on Gore's personality. ....

Next came Post news columnist Dana Milbank. After attending a Gore speech he observed, "Even if Gore were speaking before a sellout crowd at Verizon Center, he would still be the smartest guy in the room. ....

Not long afterward the Post's Outlook section published yet another assault on Gore, this one by Weekly Standard editor Andrew Ferguson. ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[TwilightGardener]

1. Are they quoting Dana Milbank out of context? Because his comment

to me does not sound snarky. I WOULD expect Gore to be the smartest guy in a room. Knowing Milbank, though, I'm sure he found a way to take a jab.

[Frances]

2. I agree that Milbank's comment does not sound snarky here

However, I was dismayed by Ifil's response to the question about Luntz. (I read the whole question and answer session online at the Post.) I thought the question was a fair one and that answer was disrespectful. I wanted to write her and tell her so, but I didn't see an email address for her, and the chat session was over when I read her remarks.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Ifill--I used to like her. But this was a terrible (even hostile) response. WTF?

[blondeatlast]

10. Maybe PBS thinks it is beyond reproach? That's the impression I got

from it.

I would credit Gwen Ifill for being one of the very last of the great news anchors/reporters, but the reaction to that question speaks volumes, I just am not sure what it's shouting.

I found her response very troubling. I still respect her, but as you say, the response seemed pretty hostile. Very unlike how I perceive Ms. Ifill. Weird.

[Gabi Hayes]

3. what an arrogant, disingenuous example of RW trash

Philadelphia, Pa:"Would you be objecting if they'd hired Peter Hart?"

Peter Hart hasn't spent a career influencing people with misleading statements. Luntz has. Peter Hart is well-respected in his profession by pollsters on both sides of the political spectrum. Luntz isn't.


Gwen Ifill: Thanks for the answer, but as I pointed out, you need to take your complaints about Mr. Luntz to him, or to the debate organizers. I am neither.


.............

and to call that first missive an example of word for word media matters cut and paste is a huge LIE.

none of what the original note cites is word for word from media matters. I've read their links on the Tavis/Luntz matter, and I defy Ifil to find anything CandP'ed to the link.

the M$ media REALLY doesn't like Media Matters, do they? they just HATE it when their shoddy journalism is called into question. I love to hear them squeal.

thanks for the link!

[glitch]

5. If there were any real journalists left in the corporate media they'd be supporting media matters.

That they don't pretty much types then for what they are.

[blondeatlast]

12. You nailed it. They'd be quoting them all the time if they weren't afraid of them.

Even PBS has fallen. Damn.

[blondeatlast]

4. Gwen, oh, Gwen--not you too? Crap, can't PBS take a soft hit without

trotting out a RW talking point?

Fudk I hate the media. Fuck. Fuck. FUCK.

[glitch]

8. PBS went to the dark side 8 years ago, which is why I stopped donating to CPB,

the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Now I support individual shows like Nova or Now, Moyers, Frontline by buying their dvds when I can.

Real journalism is rare on the tube, but it's thriving on the Net thanks to people like Greg Palast and Robert Greenwald.

[Frances]

11. I think Ifill is a regular on the Washington Post discussions

I have read her discussions twice and I thought she was biased in the last session as well. Unfortunately, I don't recall a specific reason that I came to that conclusion. But I will read her again next week and see if there is a slant in that session. I used to like to watch her on TV, but I don't have TV now. Don't miss it at all. Netflix and online streaming are great for me.

[Gabi Hayes]

15. she's been like that for a long time. Media Matters has been on her case before,

and she clearly doesn't like it when her biases are brought to light. Revealing her grudge against MM was pretty enlightening, particularly when her best defense was to bring up Peter Hart, who, last time I checked had never been CENSURED by his peer groups:

from one of the media matters letters, which I WISHED the original writer HAD cut and pasted....

'' 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."''

and we know that MSNBC FIRED his lying ass, most likely for his work mentioned above. who knows the reason, but if even MSNBC won't use him, why, Gwen is your employer so comfy with him, out of ALL the pollsters in all the bars in Morocco?

[gratuitous]

7. So, if someone gets information from Media Matters . . .

Ifill is saying that their question doesn't count, or isn't legitimate? I'm at a loss to understand Ifill's hostility, but reading her comments, she sounds very defensive and rude. I was immediately put in mind of the time when Michael Jordan was asked about how much of the money Nike was paying him as a celebrity endorser might come from the sweatshops and child labor of squalid factories in Oriental locales. Jordan misdirected the question, and basically said he didn't much care where the millions Nike showered on him originated from.

Jordan got his consciousness raised a little bit, and came out okay on the issue (not great, but okay). I hope Ifill reconsiders her petulant answer in the days to come, and asks some pertinent, journalistic-type questions about her employer (since her employer's actions directly reflect on her credibility and legitimacy as a journalist).

[City Lights]

9. Fuck you, Gwen, and yes, I'd object if they hired just Peter Hart.

What I wouldn't object to is if PBS had hired both Peter Hart and Frank Luntz. It's called balance. Ugh.

[Gold Metal Flake]

13. Wow. Two rhetorical fallacies comprise her entire response.

A liar is as a liar does, Gwen.

[DemGa]

14. I didn't hear about Luntz through Media Matters

Strange she makes that assumption about the questioner. And Luntz is not just a "pollster." Luntz puts out a yearly memo framing Repuke language, which is how they all mysteriously repeat the same key terms and phrases. He's done much to bring dishonesty to language via the Republicans.

What a pompous and dismissive tone from Gwen Ifil. PBS is fast merging with the rest of our defunct media.

[blondeatlast]

16. Nor did I, but the fact that she assumed that is rather telling, don't you think? nt

[DemGa]

18. Indeed n/t

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

17. Aren't Gwen Ifill and Condasleeza best friends??

That might explain a lot about Ms. Ifill's response, wouldn't it?

[Gold Metal Flake]

19. You know, people are seldome so fast with the RW-style attack response...

...if they are not well practiced in it. Gwen Ifill is only in it for the money. When pressed, she always goes for the fallacy. She is a future Fox host, not one of us.