|
|
MSNBC Bias
To anyone who watches MSNBC you can see their clear Republican bias, from Don Imus, to Joe Scarborough, to Tucker Carlson, and the former Michael Savage, you see they are all right-wing all the time. Even the so-called liberal Chris Matthews is more of a moderate Republican than he is a Democrat. MSNBC is trying to be FOX, but that has been a total failure, why go to MSNBC for right-wing news when you can get it at FOX. Not one show on MSNBC has a rating higher than a 0.4, which is pathetic. Yet they continue to slant the news to the right when they know it is not working.
MSNBC Spinning For Bush (Again)
9-10-05 -- MSNBC is reporting an Ipsos poll that says 54% disapprove and 46% approve of Bush's handling of the relief efforts. I just saw MSNBC report the Ipsos poll, but no mention of the pew study that shows 67% disapprove and 28% approve of Bush's handling of the relief efforts.
Funny how they always cherry pick the poll that has the best numbers for Bush and report it, while they almost always ignore the poll that has the worst numbers for Bush. They do the exact same thing with Bush job approval polls. Weeks ago polls came out with the Bush job approval at 39% in one poll, and 40% in another, yet the media reports the Gallup poll that had him at 44%, while they ignore the other polls.
And who are these 46% who think he did a good job, do they own tv's ? How could you possibly approve of what he did, he did not even have a meeting with his disaster task force until wednesday, that was 3 days after the hurricane hit. BTW, Bush was still doing RNC fundraisers on tuesday while he was on vacation, 2 days after the hurricane hit. So nothing got done until thursday, 4 days after the hurricane hit. And the guard was not even in New Orleans until friday, 5 days after the hurricane hit. Even though the Governor called for troops on saturday, 2 days before the hurricane hit. Then after saying the head of FEMA Mike Brown was doing a heck of a job, they remove him and replace him. Thousands and thousands of people sat in New Orleans at the Superdome and the Convention Center for 4 days with no food and water while Bush did nothing, and 46% of these people approved of that ?
Pew Poll: 67 Percent Critical Of Bush's Relief Efforts
Summary of Findings
The American public is highly critical of President Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Two-in-three Americans (67%) believe he could have done more to speed up relief efforts, while just 28% think he did all he could to get them going quickly. At the same time, Bush's overall job approval rating has slipped to 40% and his disapproval rating has climbed to 52%, among the highest for his presidency. Uncharacteristically, the president's ratings have slipped the most among his core constituents Republicans and conservatives.
More.......
Pew: Two-In-Three Critical Of Bush's Relief Efforts
MSNBC's Pro-Bush "Town Meeting"
8-22-05 -- After George W. Bush's June 28 speech about Iraq, MSNBC's Hardball presented viewers with a decidedly skewed "town meeting" featuring a panel dominated by Iraq war boosters.
The two-hour coverage, hosted by Chris Matthews, was anchored by a panel discussion that featured MSNBC reporter Norah O'Donnell, Islam scholar Reza Aslan, and four conservative Bush supporters: Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson, Bobbie Patray of the Eagle Forum of Tennessee and Jerry Sutton, pastor of the Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, Tennessee, where the event was held.
MSNBC's coverage also included interviews with Newsweek's Jon Meacham, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden (who called for "more boots on the ground"), and Republican senators John McCain and John Warner.
In other words, MSNBC's "town meeting" excluded forceful critics of the Iraq war--a war that polls show most Americans no longer support, or believe the White House is mismanaging.
More......
MSNBC's Pro-Bush "Town Meeting"
8-19-05 - MSNBC is putting people on the air who are lying about Bill Clinton, Jamie Gorelick, Able Danger, and the 1995 wall guidelines. Whe you see these people you need to know they are lying, and you should contact CNN and complain. They do not correct them either, they just let them lie their ass off with no corrections.
Here is the truth - In the past week, conservative media -- including two New York Post columnists and two Post editorials -- have falsely suggested that information obtained by military intelligence purportedly identifying lead 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta may have been withheld from law enforcement officials because of a 1995 memo written by then-Clinton deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick.
But the Gorelick memo and ensuing guidelines, which conservatives claim created a "wall" between intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials, had nothing to do with military intelligence -- those documents addressed communications only among divisions within the Department of Justice. Moreover, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, the "wall" that conservatives accuse Gorelick of enacting had been operative well before Gorelick -- or Clinton -- took office.
But if Able Danger did in fact identify Atta, the Gorelick memo and the subsequent 1995 Clinton administration guidelines based on it did not prevent the group from sharing that information with intelligence agencies or law enforcement officials. As former Attorney General John Ashcroft noted in his testimony before the 9-11 Commission, the Gorelick memo provided the "basic architecture" for the 1995 guidelines established by then-Attorney General Janet Reno that formalized rules for intelligence sharing that were already in place.
But, as the 1995 guidelines clearly state, the Gorelick memo and the guidelines applied only to intelligence sharing "between the FBI and the Criminal Division" within the Justice Department, not a military unit established by the Defense Department.
9-11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow also clearly noted during the commission's hearings that the "wall" applied only to the Justice Department: "Over time, the wall requirement came to be interpreted by the Justice Department, and particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as imposing an increasingly stringent barrier to communications between FBI intelligence agents and criminal prosecutors."
More........
MSNBC Lying About The Wall And Able Danger
I do have to say that MSNBC has one show that is actually fair and balanced with a pretty objective host. That show is Countdown with Keith Olberman, he does a very good job of reporting the news the people need to know. And he does it by giving voices to both sides with equal time. If you do decide to watch a cable news show Countdown is the one show you should watch.
Olbermann Out Of Control -- With Sincerity
The New York Daily News reported today that MSNBC president Rick Kaplan allegedly ripped into Keith Olbermann following his editorial description of his own bout with near-cancer.
The Daily News:
...Kaplan erupted angrily and at length, calling Olbermann "out of control" and "not to be trusted," and accusing him of driving away viewers from the 9 p.m. debut of Kaplan hire Rita Cosby's show, "Live and Direct."
Olbermann urged smokers (like me) to quit now and included descriptions of the aftermath of a tumor he had removed from his mouth due to pipe and cigar smoking. And yeah, it was a little graphic. Not "ready when you are, Sergeant Pembry" graphic, but he mentioned blood. Gasp! See? He's out of control! MSNBC viewers want everlasting geysers of child-touching news. Not blood and cancer stories. Stupid Keith.
Now if anything was going to drive away viewers from "Live and Direct" is was the sound of Rita Cosby's voice which was not unlike a midrange one-note hum. Since this is writin', here's how you can do your very own Cosby impression: hum the first line of the Star Spangled banner. When you hit the lyric "see", hold that note. For an hour.
Nevertheless, Olbermann was being sincere and highly personal. And he mentioned "gobs of blood". So what.
Did Kaplan ever race into the newsroom shouting invectives like "[you're] not to be trusted" when Joe Scarborough or Pat Buchanan (who filled in for Scarborough for what seemed like years) spouted half-truths, lies, or outright hate-speech? What about when Buchanan compared the removal of Terry Schiavo's feeding tube to "Nazi crimes against humanity"? Or when Congressman Joe said that Democrats are "celebrating" the anniversary of the Abu Ghraib photos?
"Countdown" is one of -- scratch that -- the only prime time cable news show that doesn't make me throw up in my mouth. Then again, we're in the era of "Through the Looking Glass" in which lies and superficial reporting rule the day and truth isn't a ratings-grabber; a time when a personal story which involves the word "blood" is considered out of control yet lies and distortions are a-okay.
Note: Remember that this idiot Rick Kaplan is the guy who thought it was a good idea to give Tucker Carlson his own show, and who has hired the FOX news reject Rita Cosby and given her a show too. Not to mention giving Joe (dead girl in his office) Scarborough a show. It's all right-wing all the time on MSNBC.
Olbermann Out Of Control -- With Sincerity
One of the best examples of bias from MSNBC was the Terri Schiavo story. Putting aside your view of the Schiavo story, it's clear that right-wing "pro-life" protesters scored a media coup in terms of attention and coverage. On television, their voices and leaders have been front and center in the story and their acts of civil disobedience have been widely broadcast. Their presence has been used as a backdrop for the TV theater.
The good news is: Despite polls showing that the American people are overwhelmingly on the side of Terri Schiavo's husband, TV has nevertheless given sympathetic (and unprecedented) attention to the views of street demonstrators, even civil disobedients, representing a distinct minority of the public.
The bad news is: For decades, such coverage has not been afforded to progressive demonstrators.
When hundreds of thousands of protesters took to America's streets to avert a war with Iraq (at a time that most Americans and some powerful voices in Congress also opposed the rush to war), they were largely ridiculed or ignored by these same TV networks.
In fact, showing a commitment to airing the views of antiwar protesters could get you fired in TV news. I found that out when I worked at MSNBC in 2002-2003. On the eve of the war, MSNBC terminated Phil Donahue's primetime show, the most-watched program on the channel. That day we learned of an NBC internal memo expressing alarm that Donahue would become "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors will be waving the flag at every opportunity."
MSNBC's solution: Lose Donahue and the voices of antiwar protesters. Pick up the flag.
MSNBC Panders to The Right
MSNBC Sabotages Donahue
February 28, 2003
Monopolist Microsoft and oligopolist General Electric - the co-owners of MSNBC - took their highest rated show off the air and sent Phil Donahue away on February 25, 2003. After choosing Donahue to host his own 8pm daily show only six months ago, the corporate managers micromanaged, mismanaged and refused to let Phil Donahue be Phil Donahue.
About the only freedom Donahue had was the freedom to say what he thinks. Beyond that he was often told what kinds of subjects to showcase and what kind of guests to have. And he was often chided for being too tough on some guests - shades of Fox's Bill O'Reilly, his competition for that hour, and the spitting, screeching, viper-like Sean Hannity.
In the past few months, the corporate "suits" even told Donahue that he had to have more conservative or right-wing guests than liberals on the same hour show.
Still, Donahue persevered. His ratings were slowly increasing, despite the regular lacerations that the top brass inflicted on a show that was supposed to be the liberal counterpart of the right-wing, bellicose Fox fare stitched together by Rupert Murdoch's media empire.
MSNBC, which was receiving ratings of about 440,000 viewers for Donahue, was aiming for 1,000,000 people. Were they interested in one million predominately liberal viewers attracted to the legendary talk show host who, starting in the Sixties, broke apart on morning television the biases or taboos against women, minorities, gays and lesbians, downtrodden workers, consumer and environmental rights? Doubtful. For if they were, some of their promotional budgets would have gone for reaching liberal audiences of the kind who read Utne magazine, Mother Jones, or who watch various PBS outlets and other serious programming.
What emerged was quite different than that described by Steve Friedman, former producer of NBC's "Today" and the CBS "Early Show," who told a reporter: "I think MSNBC felt the way to beat Fox was to do a liberal version of what Fox was doing, and Phil was a good person to do that. I don't know if they were really committed to that."
They were not. Instead, the top brass allowed other pulls to shatter the identity and consistency of the show - which, by the way, would have always provided for contrary views to those held by Phil.
Full Story:
MSNBC Sabotages Donahue
MSNBC's Matthews pushed Santorum to label Sen. Clinton a "socialist"
On MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked guest Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is a "big-government socialist." When Santorum responded vaguely to the question, Matthews pressed him on the issue. "Well, what's your answer?" he asked. Santorum responded, "The answer is yes," but added, "Socialist may be a little hard." Matthews again asked whether Santorum agreed with the label, to which Santorum answered, "I would not use the term socialist."
Full Story:
Matthews Pushed santorum to Label Hillary a Socialist
The Situation's Jay Severin called Sen. Clinton "the devil"
Discussing former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) appearance at a June 25 revival in New York City with evangelist Billy Graham, radio host Jay Severin described Sen. Clinton as "the devil."
Full Story:
Severin Calls Hillary The Devil
David Brock Letter to MSNBC regarding Tucker Carlson's new show
Dear Mr. Kaplan:
We noted with interest MSNBC's impending launch of The Situation With Tucker Carlson. We thought we would take the opportunity to offer you our input.
Given the current lineup on MSNBC and its fellow cable news channels, the addition of one more conservative as a prime-time host -- particularly one with a penchant for hyperbole, distortion and outright misinformation -- will further skew MSNBC's prime-time lineup and undermine the network's credibility. MSNBC already features one conservative host in prime time (Joe Scarborough), not to mention Chris Matthews, whose undisguised contempt for liberals and Democrats seems to grow by the day (as Media Matters for America recently documented, despite absurd claims from the right that he is a liberal, Matthews has admitted voting for President Bush "at least once," proudly said he "defended [Bush] against the liberal elite," and echoed conservative talking points on any number of issues).
Even though the addition of Carlson means that you are adding yet another conservative as sole host of a prime-time show, we would like to encourage you to allow some progressive voices to be heard as well. Preliminary reports indicate that Carlson's program will feature a regular group of panelists to discuss issues in the news. We are sure that you have a genuine desire that these panels be balanced. Allow us to suggest what true balance would look like.
First, a discussion between two conservatives and one progressive is not "balanced." On the typical cable news show, the conservative host will be joined by a conservative guest and a liberal guest, making for a 2-to-1 imbalance. Sometimes, these shows even tilt 3-to-1 against the sacrificial progressive. Media Matters noted such a panel on MSNBC during last fall's presidential debate and a series of them during the presidential inauguration in January.
Second, a discussion between two conservatives and one reporter for a mainstream news organization is not "balanced." All too often, reporters are brought on as foils for opinionated conservatives, leaving no one to advocate a progressive position and playing into the distorted conservative complaint that journalists are liberal advocates. This is not to say that reporters shouldn't be panelists, but when they are, don't fool yourself into thinking they balance conservatives. Media Matters also noted this phenomenon on MSNBC during last fall's presidential debates.
There are many articulate, interesting, insightful progressives who would be assets to panel discussions -- not just on Carlson's show but on any similar program on your channel. If you are having any trouble filling the slots, don't hesitate to get in touch with us for some suggestions.
Sincerely,
David Brock
President and CEO
Media Matters for America
Brock Letter to MSNBC
Matthews's statements defy conservatives' claims that he is a "liberal Democrat"
From a Republican National Committee (RNC) press release to the tirades of right-wing pundits, conservatives have repeatedly accused MSNBC host Chris Matthews of being a "liberal Democrat." But while Matthews did work for former President Jimmy Carter and former House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. (D-MA), his statements on major political issues belie the claim that he consistently sides with the Democrats.
Despite Matthews's assertion that Vice President Dick Cheney clearly won the 2004 vice presidential debate over Democratic nominee Sen. John Edwards ("The analogy would be a water pistol [Edwards] against a machine gun [Cheney]"), the RNC issued a press release following that debate titled "Democrat Chris Matthews' Selective 'Analysis': Matthews Pinch Hits For Edwards And Strikes Out The Truth." Similarly, in recounting a September 1, 2004, confrontation with Matthews in his new book A Deficit of Decency (Stroud & Hall, April 2005), former Sen. Zell Miller claimed that Matthews took him out of context because "Matthews was only interested in his usual liberal bias and rapid-fire questions."
Media figures have also broadly labeled Matthews a liberal. Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh frequently asserts that Matthews is a "liberal Democrat," most recently on May 10 (membership required). Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III recently declared of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews: "When it comes to liberal or radical guests, he [Matthews] ought to rename the show 'Cuddles with Chris.' " Right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin described Matthews as one of "the Democrat Party waterboys in the media." NewsMax.com columnist Wes Vernon described Matthews as a "Democrat-leaning commentator."
The erroneous description of Matthews as a liberal may serve to advance the more general misperception of balance in MSNBC's prime-time lineup. In fact, joining former Republican Rep. Joe Scarborough's Scarborough Country, progressive* commentator Keith Olbermann on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and Hardball will soon be The Situation with Tucker Carlson, hosted by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson.
Those who label Matthews a progressive have evidently ignored telling indicators to the contrary. As recently as the May 27 edition of Hardball, Matthews responded to documentary filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi's suggestion that members of the media -- including Matthews -- have portrayed President Bush as a "dunce" by asserting that he has voted for Bush "at least once" and that he has "defended [Bush] against the liberal elitists":
MATTHEWS: I make this president look like -- you don't watch this program, Alexandra. That has never been the case with me. And anybody watching knows right now, we treat this guy [Bush] with respect. I happen to like him. I voted for him at least once. I'm not going to go any further on that. But the idea that we treat him like a dunce is just inaccurate.
Full Story:
Evidence Matthews is Not a Democrat
Republicans dominated 11-2 in MSNBC's State of the Union coverage
Republican officials and conservative pundits far outnumbered Democrats and progressives on MSNBC's February 2 coverage following President Bush's State of the Union address and the Democratic response. MSNBC featured five Republicans and conservatives compared to only one progressive. By comparison, FOX News featured eight Republicans and conservatives and six Democrats and progressives, while CNN presented six pundits or officials from each side of the political spectrum.
Combined with a six-to-one Republican to Democrat ratio on the February 2 edition of Hardball before the speech -- which Media Matters for America documented -- MSNBC's State of the Union coverage from 7 p.m. to midnight ET featured eleven conservatives and Republicans and only two progressives. No Democratic officials, aside from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in the Democratic response, appeared on MSNBC during the entire five-hour period.
Full Story:
Republicans Dominated Coverage of Bush Speech
Led by Cheney, Imus in the Morning became Brit Hume fan club
On the January 20 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus and Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman joined Vice President Dick Cheney in heaping praise on FOX News host, managing editor, and chief Washington correspondent Brit Hume. When asked by Imus, "Do you watch the news at night?" Cheney responded, "I sometimes watch another network [besides MSNBC]. No, I'm a fan of Brit Hume's show. I think Brit does a good job." Imus then declared, "I actually like Brit Hume." Later in the program, Fineman stated that Hume is a "terrific journalist" who has been "great at ABC and great at FOX."
Cheney's praise for Hume is unsurprising, given that Hume is a regular promoter of Cheney and the Bush administration. But it is unclear why Imus and Fineman have such respect for Hume as a journalist, given his long history of distortions and outright falsehoods and his reliable attacks on Democrats, which Media Matters for America has documented.
Full Story:
Imus Loves Cheney & Hume
New MSNBC contributor Crowley already contributing to Social Security confusion
During MSNBC's coverage of President Bush's inauguration, radio host and MSNBC contributor and analyst Monica Crowley (formerly of FOX News), made the misleading claim that "people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, are very enthusiastic about the idea of controlling some of their own [Social Security] money and not allowing the government to do it for them." But a Media Matters for America analysis of six recent polls that examine the issue suggests that younger Americans' support for private accounts is not as clear as Crowley claimed: (1) some polls indicate a significant drop in support for privatization among all age groups when the potential realities of such a system -- decreased guaranteed benefits and $2 trillion in transition costs -- are included in the questions; and (2) some polls also show that there is far less support for private accounts among those in their 30s and 40s as compared to workers aged 18-29.
Full Story:
MSNBC's Crowley Already Spreading GOP Lies
What is happening at MSNBC?
Over the past several months, Media Matters for America has documented more than 130 instances (as of this posting) in which MSNBC has provided an outlet for conservative misinformation. Hardball host Chris Matthews, Scarborough Country host former U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL), and MSNBC analyst and regular Scarborough Country guest host Pat Buchanan frequently distort, misinform, mislead, and play host to skewed panels. But MSNBC's track record may be about to get much worse: Media Matters has already noted the network's reported interest in hiring CNN and PBS host Tucker Carlson, as well as Carlson's long history of distortions and false statements. And on December 18, TVNewser reported that the network had made preparations for a new program to be co-anchored by Ron Reagan Jr. and conservative radio host Monica Crowley -- who recently joined MSNBC as a contributor and analyst after eight years at FOX News Channel.
Full Story:
Documented Proof MSNBC Lies And Spreads Conservative Misinformation
MSNBC anchor Robach implied Bush protesters unpatriotic
As noted on the weblog Daily Kos, MSNBC Live anchor Amy Robach suggested that protesting President Bush's policies was unpatriotic. Following a live broadcast of President Bush's Independence Day address at West Virginia University, Robach told viewers, "There were a couple of protesters we heard with a few signs, but for the most part, looks like a very patriotic crowd."
Robach apparently does not believe that one can love one's country while opposing the current president. As The New York Times reported, many of the protesters did, in fact, explicitly state their support for the troops:
Outside the presidential rally in Morgantown, one protester made reference to the [Valerie Plame] case, holding a sign that read: "Jail Karl Rove."
Several dozen other protesters demonstrated against the war in Iraq, chanting, "Please support our troops, not the president!"
Full Story:
MSNBC Anchor Calls Bush Protestors Unpatriotic
GOP's Luntz again just a "pollster" on MSNBC
MSNBC political analyst and contributor Pat Buchanan failed to disclose pollster Frank Luntz's Republican ties on the October 31 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, which Buchanan was guest hosting.
At the end of September, MSNBC dropped Luntz from its planned presidential debate coverage, apparently in response to a letter from Media Matters for America that outlined Luntz's GOP ties and questionable polling methodology. Before MMFA wrote to MSNBC, the network had repeatedly featured Luntz, without identifying him as a pollster with strong Republican ties (more on Luntz's partisan bent here and here). When Luntz returned to MSNBC as a guest three weeks after the first presidential debate, the network accurately identified him as a Republican pollster, as MMFA noted on October 22.
The fact that they hired a well known Republican pollster, then did not disclose it proves they have a Republican bias. He should have never been hired in the first place, he is a partisan hack who uses rigged polls and or spins the results.
Full Story:
GOP's Luntz again just a "pollster" on MSNBC
Phil Donahue on his 2003 MSNBC firing: "We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals."
On the October 28 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, veteran talk show host Phil Donahue remarked on being fired from MSNBC in February 2003. As The New York Times reported at the time, when Donahue's MSNBC show, Donahue, was cancelled, "he was actually attracting more viewers than any other show on MSNBC."
SEAN HANNITY (co-host): What happened at MSNBC?
DONAHUE: Well, we were the only antiwar voice that had a show, and that, I think, made them very nervous. I mean, from the top down, they were just terrified. We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals.
HANNITY: You have the force of two liberals.
DONAHUE: I mean, you know, it's a shame, you know? Now, we were replaced by Michael Savage, and now they have Chuck [sic: Joe] Scarborough. And by the way, I wish them all well. A lot of the people who worked for me, incidentally, a wonderful crowd of very young, bright people who worked for me, some of whom have now matriculated to other programs on MSNBC. So I want them to do well, but I certainly wasn't -- it was a very, very unhappy time for me.
HANNITY: You felt mistreated? You felt mistreated?
DONAHUE: Well, we were very -- I was isolated, and we were very alone at the end. And then we had nobody supporting us, and our numbers were very decent. We weren't Elvis, but we were often the best number --
HANNITY: You were the highest-rated show on the network.
DONAHUE: Yes. And we were told to leave.
Phil Donahue Explains Why he Was Cancelled
Discredited Republican pollster Frank Luntz made rounds on MSNBC convention coverage with flawed focus group; nobody pointed out his partisanship
Discredited Republican pollster Frank Luntz, CEO and president of Luntz Research Companies, made four appearances during MSNBC's coverage of the Democratic (July 28 and July 29) and Republican (September 1 and September 2) National Conventions, touting flawed focus groups in three of his appearances. Not once during any of these appearances did any MSNBC anchor or commentator mention Luntz's partisan Republican ties or questionable ethical standards.
The overall results of Luntz's convention studies were not overtly in favor of either presidential candidate -- the focus groups' results for each convention generally favored each convention's featured party. But three of his four focus groups showed an institutional bias toward President George W. Bush. One Luntz focus group held during the DNC compared Gore 2000 voters to Bush 2000 voters. But he conducted three other groups (one during the DNC and two during the RNC) in which he compared Republicans' reactions to speeches to the combined reactions of Democrats and Independents. Furthermore, during his September 2 appearance on MSNBC, Luntz described those groups as "Republicans" and "Democrats"; but onscreen, they were identified as "GOP" and "Dem/Ind."
On July 28, MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews described Luntz as "a great pollster," but as Media Matters for America has noted, Salon.com reported in 2000 that there is little reason to trust his polls. In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) reprimanded Luntz for his polling work on the Republican Party's 1994 Contract with America campaign platform. The Salon.com article described Luntz as "possibly the best example of what we could call the pollster pundit: someone who both purports to scientifically poll the opinions of the public, and then also interpret that data to support his own -- in Luntz's case, conservative -- point of view." Luntz has explained his own methodology as follows: "Say you poll on an environmental issue, and on eight of the 10 questions the numbers are in your favor. Why release the other two? It's like being a lawyer."
Full Story:
MSNBC Hides Partisan Ideology of frank Luntz
Letter to MSNBC urging disclosure of pollster Luntz's GOP ties, questionable standards
Dear Mr. Kaplan:
Based on your channel's programming and editorial decisions during the 2000 presidential debates, I anticipate you are considering featuring Republican pollster Frank Luntz, CEO and president of Luntz Research Companies, as part of the network's analysis of this year's presidential debates. I'm writing to ask that, if you have already chosen to include Luntz as part of your coverage, you reconsider that decision in light of Luntz's partisan Republican ties and history of questionable scientific methodology. If Luntz must be a part of MSNBC's lineup, I would expect that its viewers will be informed of these facts on-air.
As Salon.com reported in 2000, there is little reason to trust a poll taken by Frank Luntz, who was reprimanded in 1997 by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) for his work polling for the Republican Party's 1994 "Contract with America" campaign platform. According to Salon.com: "Luntz told the media that everything in the contract had the support of at least 60 percent of the general public," but when a member of the AAPOR "filed a complaint requesting to see Luntz's research and verification of the figure," Luntz refused, citing "client confidentiality." Salon.com described Luntz as "possibly the best example of what we could call the pollster pundit: someone who both purports to scientifically poll the opinions of the public, and then also interpret that data to support his own -- in Luntz's case, conservative -- point of view." Salon.com added that, according to David W. Moore, author of the book The Super Pollsters, Luntz's work is little more than "propaganda" disguised as research. Luntz has explained his own methodology as follows: "Say you poll on an environmental issue, and on eight of the 10 questions the numbers are in your favor. Why release the other two? It's like being a lawyer."
I sincerely hope your channel will not repeat the mistakes made during its coverage of the 2004 Democratic and Republican National Conventions, when MSNBC anchors and commentators failed to even once mention Luntz's partisan Republican ties or questionable polling standards during three appearances in which he touted flawed focus groups.
Though the overall results of Luntz's convention studies were not overtly in favor of either presidential candidate, three of his four focus groups were institutionally biased toward President George W. Bush. One Luntz focus group held during the DNC compared the views of Gore 2000 voters to Bush 2000 voters. Yet in three other groups (one during the DNC and two during the RNC) Luntz compared Republicans' reactions to speeches to the combined reactions of Democrats and Independents and then wrongly labeled the groups as "Republicans" and "Democrats" during his September 2 appearance on MSNBC.
Your channel's failure to identify Luntz's party affiliation notwithstanding, this pollster has made clear his preference for the 2004 presidential election. The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported on September 2: "Earlier this year, GOP pollster Frank Luntz advised Republicans to never talk about Iraq or homeland security without first mentioning how 9/11 changed everything." The Cleveland Plain Dealer noted on September 1 that "Republican pollster Frank Luntz did his best Tuesday to pump up Ohio's Republicans at a delegation breakfast. 'If you guys fail, if John Kerry becomes president by a percent or half a percent, I think you're going to be pretty regretful,' he said."
I trust that as a reputable media organization, MSNBC will agree to provide full disclosure of all relevant information regarding its commentators and pollsters in the future. I look forward to monitoring your channel's coverage of the upcoming debates.
Sincerely,
David Brock
President and CEO
Media Matters for America
David Brock Letter to MSNBC on Frank Luntz
|
|
|