|
||
At FOX News: If Your Guy Doesn't Win, Cook The Numbers!
In a very odd moment I happened to catch at FOX News post-debate Tuesday night, conservative pollster Frank Luntz, who had gathered together a focus group of supposed undecideds to watch the debate, asked for a show of hands as to who won the thing. ("How many thought McCain won? Okay, how many thought Obama?")
Unfortunately for Luntz, the majority said Obama had won. This didn't work for Luntz. Nor did it work for FOX anchor, Brit Hume, who began looking a bit sickly.
After a half-beat pause, Luntz decided he knew how to save what was turning into an icky situation. (After all, he's Frank Luntz, always the smartest guy in the room, just ask him.) So he eyed one guy whom he'd determined was a McCain supporter and said, "But people said that McCain was better on the economy, why did you think so?" (Or words to that effect, clearly suggesting that the guy was merely one among many speaking for the general feeling in the room.)
The McCain guy immediately caught the tossed ball. "Oh yes," he said and proceeded to expound as to why. Some nonsense about McCain being more specific or whatever.
So, said a slightly cheered Hume, the majority thought that Senator McCain did better on the economy?
Yes, beamed Luntz. But then he made a fatal mistake. He turned to his focus group members and asked them how many thought McCain did the best on the economy.
Around six out of the 25 or so panel members raised their hands. At that juncture, Luntz was not foolish enough to ask how many thought that Obama did better on the economy. Instead, he swiveled speedily away from the group. "Okay, that's about half who thought McCain did better," said Luntz, lying mightily with an entirely straight face, as the camera quickly cut away.
Bad, Frank. Very bad.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I recall going on the FoxNews site right after the debate. I voted Barack won on the poll they were hosting, the page updated and I was surprised to see that Barack had a slight lead against McCain. Within the hour I went back to the site to see if Barack had held his lead only to find that their was some technical error, the poll wasn't available at this time. The next day, Fox had McCain, what, 70% or something ridiculous over Barack at 30%. Bull donkey. Fox is far from fair.
Don't forget that this is the same Frank Luntz who is the ONLY member of the AAPOR leadership (the professional organization for pollsters-- like the AMA but more boring) who was ever FORCIBLY REMOVED from the body because HE MADE UP POLL NUMBERS AND PUBLISHED THEM. For more info on his other problems with the truth, see the source of all knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Criticism
Honesty is not a big priority for this guy. Never has been. Never will.
Anyone who watches FakeNews anymore is simply seeking confirmation of their right wing beliefs.
CLIP!!!!! post a clip please!
The desperate cling to power so as to maintain one's place in the Republic money trough isn't limited to politicians. Luntz has been feeding off the trough and wants to continue his membership in the club.
Prospects for Luntz' consulting business after January 2009 are looking dismal.
For someone who has been instrumental in teaching republicans how to redefine people, issues or government programs, ex., "death tax" his demise will be welcomed.
fox became the leading "news" channel during the Clinton presidency. The "voice of the opposition" can always do well.
Not true, actually. Fox"News" did not become a reliable ratings leader until after Clinton was out of office. It was a combination of 9/11 and the start of the Iraq War that led to the network's ratings surge.
What a bunch of clowns.
Honestly, they just shout down, ignore, or cut the mic on any guests that have different viewpoint than their stock predetermined GOP one.
I saw that. Frank Luntz is worse than Sean Hannity, because they bring Luntz in under the pretense of being a "polling expert".
Do you really expect anything different from Fox?
How do these guys live with themselves? I mean really.
Good question. I think it might serve us to also ask, How did WE live with these guys for so long..and then allowng a second crime ..the election 2004. It can be said charitably that Americans have a great capacity for tolerance at odds with our self preservation.
Not so sure it's a matter of us having a great capacity for tolerance, more possibly a combination of apathy, political laziness, falling for fear based rhetoric, sleeping in class and not doing our homework.
Because they get paid? It's a job.
Isn't this the same network that was talking to a bunch of voters in a Scranton restaurant last week? When asked for a show of hands for mccain, only one man began to raise his hand, but dropped it when his wife said something to him. When asked to show who was for Obama, they all raised their hands, including that gentleman. Then the reporter had the nerve to say "well, as you can see, it's pretty close." Can that fake network still keep it license with this garbage. Why don't they just admit they are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the RNC? At least they wouldn't be lying.
I wonder what's going to happen to Fox after Obama wins? Any use in being a mouthpiece for a flailing minority opposition party?
When Barack Obama becomes President (Yes!!), Fox will be the radical right's most useful asset.
Despite all their talk about respect for the president and the office, they will begin a four year long campaign to malign, slander, weaken and discredit our elected president. If you think the racism displayed so far in this campaign is bad, wait until after the inauguration. Bill Clinton governed from the center, but the fact that he beat the Republicans not once but twice, was unforgivable. Hence the irrelevant scandals, investigations, special prosecutor and impeachment. It wasn't about his policies, which were more like old-style Republican policies than traditional Democratic policies, it was about the charismatic upstart daring to beat two of their own.
Barack Obama, if his campaign platform is anything to go by, will govern in much the same way as Clinton, and so we can expect the same kind of hypocritical attacks by the right wing, led by Fox and the usual suspects on talk radio. And if they hated Clinton, they will positively detest the darker hued Obama, although they will be careful to always deny a racial slant to their slime.
Ugh. You're probably right.
So very true, Westwind. The right acted throughout the entire second Clinton admin like they were mean little spiteful boys that had lost their marble game so they were just going to kick all your marbles out of the circle, it was appalling to watch them disrupt 4 years of government and spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a 'dress' and a Whitewater smear campaign that, after 4 years, still produced no results. So on to his personal reputation, if you cannot find anything corrupt about him professionally. And when Clinton spoke out on the possibility of future terrorist plots, they called it 'wagging the dog'. acting like the Monica Lewinski dress was so much more important than having the audacity to act presidential and continue his job. These guys, like Ken Starr, should be in prison.
Yet, in spite of 4 years of chronic harrassment and torment, and an impeachment, the Clinton administration actually performed as the leader of a superpower is supposed to perform, doing their business for the country in an exemplary fashion. Can you imagine?
We can certainly expect 4 years of the same for Obama. But this is not the free-wheeling 90's, maybe their tactics are old, tired and overused. Maybe in the state the country is in, everyone is tired of watching mean-spirited, nasty, spiteful tactics. Now they just look outdated and ugly. They may not work this time.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
