Frank Luntz's Professional "undecided" focus group members (September 5 vs January 6)

YouTube ^

[CharlesWayneCT]

This doesn’t show he is not neutral, although he isn’t neutral, and doesn’t really pretend to be neutral.

Read the report I posted the link to above from a Freeper who was on one of these focus groups. Luntz has his biases — but it also sounded like he was serious about ensuring his audience was undecided.

[Bryan24]

For those few of you who DON’T believe, this is more evidence of the MSM manipulating what we see to give us a false understanding of what is really happening in this country.

I am convinced that we, the voters, have no real idea of what is actually happening in this country. I no longer trust ANY network to tell me the truth.

[MeanWestTexan]

HEY, WHERE IS HIS GREEN HELMET?

[The Pack Knight]

I would put him in the same category as Dick Morris. His main agenda is selling books.

[LibLieSlayer]

... and doing whatever fox pays him to do... like packing his “focus group” with mitt-wits.

LLS

[Prokopton]

Wow, thanks....Fox News:Anything but a real conservative network.

Fox News is Tabloid TV. Luntz's "focus groups" are about as serious as a game show. If you must, watch Fox for entertainment, not for serious political commentary.

[The Pack Knight]

Actually, you're right. I didn't watch the video before I posted that, but, rather, took another poster's word on its face. I don't usually do that, and this is why.

I never believed he was a "plant", per se, though I was, and still am, suspicious that anyone would be willing to maintain that they are "undecided" if it meant getting on TV and, perhaps, helping their preferred candidate. This is especially likely considering that the focus group is self-selected; they sign up on his website. The way many of the focus group members parrot various positive and negative talking points floating around about the candidates (Fred "looks old", Mitt is "too slick") calls their neutrality into serious question in my mind.

I can't speak for many other Fred supporters, but I've never put a great deal of stock in Frank Luntz, his methodology, or his focus groups. They can be informative, but only when the points they make are well-reasoned, or when they seem truly spontaneous. I have not, however, thought their responses were ever truly representative of the "average voter".

[9YearLurker]

And here was one of Freeper’s comments (#195) in that thread on his experience with Fox and Luntz’s focus group:

“I just watched the morning reports on my dvr...total joke and a hatchet job by the Fox crew. You could just feel the Rudy shill going on last night and they cut my comments out about how disappointed and sad it was to hear that people were changing their minds for Rudy right in front of me.

I thought we all decided at the start that we wanted a true conservative to win this thing? Luntz pushed the Rudy/Romney questions big time.”

[The Pack Knight]

I think the time they spent literally 20 minutes on a "hard news" show talking about Britney Spears' being caught going commando last year did it for me.

I do like Cavuto, Special Report, the Saturday morning business block, and the Wall Street Journal editorial board, but that's about it. Other than those shows, I typically watch more CNN and CNBC than Fox.

For me, a focus on serious news and a reasonable commitment to accuracy is far more important than whether the news has a liberal "slant". After all, no reporting can be truly objective, and it's never helpful to hear only part of the story just because you happen to agree with the person who is giving it to you. You simply have to apply your own reason and judgment and consider the source of everything you see and hear, including here.

[OKIEDOC]

Why blame FNC for what Luntz does? Is FNC supposed to vette all the members of the focus group assembled by Luntz?

Courtesy comment:

Well duh, excuse me for being totally eat up with the dumb butt.

I guess that the responsibility for who works for you must belong not to Fox but...hum....PMSNBC or CNN.

[aroundabout]

Perhaps I’m not bright enough to understand your reply, but the gist of it seems to be that if they appear on FOX then Fox is responsible for all they do, how they do it and whom they use to do it with. Were this a taped segment then ok, maybe.

Here is a link to the home page of Luntz:

http://www.luntz.com/

Here you will find an explanation of what it is he does. There is also a solicitation for people to join his focus group(s). This says that people who join these groups are NOT random selections done the day the event in question is focus grouped.

I am not sure of this but maybe he has different groups for Dems, Rep, and Ind.

It would then not be unusual to see the same individual at different Luntz focus group events.

[OKIEDOC]

aroundabout wrote:
Perhaps I’m not bright enough to understand your reply, but the gist of it seems to be that if they appear on FOX then Fox is responsible for all they do, how they do it and whom they use to do it with. Were this a taped segment then ok, maybe.

Comment:

First of all your plenty bright as shown by you ability to use good English.

However,Fox is ultimately responsible for hiring and paying Frank Luntz to put together these Focus groups.

Therefore Fox is ultimately responsible for any information that is aired over their network.

aroundabout wrote:
It would then not be unusual to see the same individual at different Luntz focus group events.

Comment

I think it is highly unusual for any individual to be at a focus group more than once.

There are probably hundreds if not thousands of Republicans or Democrats that are good candidates for a focus group.

With that said I still think the focus groups are a good idea.

Frank just needs to do a better job of vetting the individual members.

[CharlesWayneCT]

It’s actually a shame that we can’t count on Freepers to at least report the facts on things like this.

Videos aren’t easily accessable by everyone during the day, so it’s especially important when something is a video report that the contents of the video be described accurately.

I believe luntz tries to keep his people “undecided”, I also think that’s kind of a stupid focus group, since it means it’s people who haven’t figured out how to do research and make decisions, and now they are going to be measured by how much one debate can correct that deficiency.

However, if you can really get undecideds, I think the reaction plots are very helpful, because it shows how the message and tone of the candidates is perceived by people who don’t have a preconceived bias.

[aroundabout]

You are assuming focus group members are SUPPOSED to be random and I’m not at all sure that is the method used.

Ultimately you can claim FNC is responsible for anything they air but then that would mean they never EVER air anythung live.

It is unreasonable to expect FNC to tell Luntz or anyone else how to run their business.

[Greg F]

I’ve been in a Luntz focus group. Wasn’t selected through any bogus process (that I was aware of).

[Recovering_Democrat]

MFH, is that YOU in the crowd?!

[HIDEK6]

the question is did he say he had committed by the end of the previous debate?

No amount of ass-kissing will make him decided until there is no more kissing to be done.

[Bob]

It is unreasonable to expect FNC to tell Luntz or anyone else how to run their business.

While that's true, it's not unreasonable for Fox News to ask him how he does run his business. From there, it's up to Fox News to determine if that way is acceptable for them to ait it.

[donna]

Luntz may have a dog in the Republican race that he wants to promote, but he’s not a Democrat. He used to advise Gingrich and other Republicans, and he supposed to be the man who came up with the term “death tax” to refer to the estate tax.

And Perot, too.

[My Favorite Headache]

I was in the one in Orlando for those debates.