WOW, yes nice catch indeed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLVg...eature=related ataround 3:46 and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZenB1s2rKDI at around 1:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLVg...eature=related ataround 3:46 and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZenB1s2rKDI at around 1:44
Fox News and Neo-con pollster Frank Luntz using same guy for one of their fake focus groups. Digg it here.
You will notice that they put up an undecided voter twice. The same guy is seen on the 9-7-07 debate then reappears again in the 1-6-08 debate. Fox News are liars.
Props to dexter_roseville at ronpaulforums.com for the eagle eye. As Penn and Teller point out in this video, Frank Luntz is nothing more than a payed spinmeister, a man who whores himself out to get Fox News the reaction they want.
Thanks Frank! Joe Goebbels would be proud!
You will notice that they put up an undecided voter twice. The same guy is seen on the 9-7-07 debate then reappears again in the 1-6-08 debate. Fox News are liars.
Props to dexter_roseville at ronpaulforums.com for the eagle eye. As Penn and Teller point out in this video, Frank Luntz is nothing more than a payed spinmeister, a man who whores himself out to get Fox News the reaction they want.
Thanks Frank! Joe Goebbels would be proud!
28 comments:
If he is still undecided, what is wrong with having him twice? His comments after the first debate don't indicate he made up his mind.
How does this make anything fake?
Doesn't matter. No matter what else is happening in other news outlets, Fox is evil. GETIT?? ;-)
Yea I don't see what the problem is... so an undecided voter shows up twice? How is that indicative of a lie? If FOX were to have fake focus groups, why wouldn't they just cast new people? This doesn't prove anything.
Click on the "digg it" thread. Nobody explains why this matters. All they say is that it's "another FOX lie". HOW??
Moron. I see no evidence of "lies" or fake focus group.
But.but..but Fox news is BAD.
"Blog for Palestine" says it all.
That man is Douglas Maher and he is a well known right wing operative. For Fox to use him as an undecided voter is unthinkable.
Chris, you saw no evidence because you refuse to open you eyes.
Maybe I'm mistaken...but I thought when you created a focus group it was supposed to be random. The odds of getting the same guy twice seem a little beyond coincidence. Nevermind what Ken said about him being an operative...if that's true that concludes this argument right then and there.
Haha, he's a "right wing operative"... this is why conspiracy theories are so silly. If he were a right wing operative, then FOX would gaing nothing by purposely planting him into focus groups. Maybe he went to an effort to get into multiple focus groups on his own if he's such a political operative.
This cartoonish theory of a bunch of evil FOX villains in an underground layer somewhere is just absurd.
I'm sure Bush caused 9/11 too. Give me a break.
Believe nothing you see on Faux News.
Why is this Fox News' fault? Some guy likes attending political debates and being heavily involved in them? So what?
Who shot Kennedy?
The point, for the statistically challenged, is this: for a focus group (or any type of survey) to have any validity, it should be generated from a random sample of the population. Because it's improbable but not impossible for someone to be randomly selected twice, as an additional safeguard, people who've participated previously within a certain time-frame (i.e. 6-12 months) should be excluded. Otherwise, you're looking at "professional" focus groups and opinion givers, tainting the results of succesive studies.
No reputable study/research firm would allow that to pass, unless they didn't care in the first place. Thus the original implication: that Luntz is dishonest in posing as an "impartial" pollster, and that FNS, at the least, are hurting their own claims of "balance" by using him.
Fox bad or just biased? I report, you decide.
You're from Canada. What do you care?
I am registered with Luntz's focus group thing. I get messages all the time to attend these things, and others.
I'm sure he just had the time to do so.
lazy but not evil
What's wrong here?
They clearly state that this is a focus group of registered Republican undecided voters. So a guy shows up to two of them.
And I'm sure it really helps Fox's quest for Republican world domination to have some random dude say two things that nobody will remember five minutes afterward. BWAAAHAAHAA!
Quit this conspiracy nonsense; it only makes you wacky liberals look wackier.
Check out the eye-opening BBC documentary on the history of public relations, "Century of the Self", (google video link), part 4 of 4 especially is on focus groups and politics.
Weren't these focus groups supposed to be in two different cities?
There is no such thing as a news agency or politician that you can trust anymore. both scum.
For some of you that "don't get it"....its pretty funny... "Chuck" as they call him, supports McCain back then, and apparently has since become undecided, and then is supporting Romney? And you think this is legit?
As for why I care, well, your right, I'm in Canada, where everytime the elephant sneezes, it effects us very much. I am admirer of the American constitution and Ron Paul's political philosophies.
I'm sure the planning at Fox HQ was something like this:
Henchman: "What's our next move in getting a Republican elected president?"
Rupert Murdoch: "Let's have this guy in a goatee show up to a focus group and say something good about a Republican candidate, but bad about another Republican candidate."
Henchman: "But sir, that won't do anything. Fist of all, people won't care what this guy says. Second, this does nothing to help get a Republican elected. Third, we've used him before in a focus group; even if a random person's opinion on a five second video clip DID sway votes, why don't we just use a new Republican participant?"
Rupert Murdoch: "Because I like making things complicated for no reason."
Henchman: "Yes, sir."
Here, Rupert Murdoch kisses the Elephant logo and cackles with laughter in his giant, George W Bush shaped office.
To be continued... DUN DUN DUNNNNN!!!
Ron Paul?! He took money from frigging Stormfront - what does THAT tell you about him?
Austin, silly boy. Ron Paul did not take money from Stormfront. Even the New York Times has apologized for making this assertion. How long are you congenital retards going to keep beating on that tired, lame drum?
That isn't Maher. About 20 years too young to be Douglas Maher.
According to Bill White, Commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, good old Ron meets regularly with members of Stormfront, American Rennaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and himself at a restaurant in Arlington, Virginia. Ron's denial of evolution is just the icing on the cake.
There you go again Austin. Are you Homer Simpson? Peter Griffin? Everyone knows this connection between Bill White, who actually works for the SPLC and the ADL, and Ron Paul is a lie. Even the New York Times. Everyone, except you, apparently. Perhaps you have an agenda (cough, zionist, cough)?
Jeeze, Faux news? Fox news is evil? So you're telling me that I'm to believe that every single other news station that is out there is the 100% complete and total non-biased truth? They all tell the same SIDE of the story, Fox tells the other side. If you think it's a pack of lies, I have a great idea Einstein, don't watch it.
I'll make it simple. Show me a news station that isn't a bunch of left wing liars (Other than Fox), and I'll believe that Fox News is this horrible station out to get the public.
Although he has recently tried to strategically distance himself, Ron's associations with far-right extremists have empowered those groups. The public endorsement (in print) by Stormfront and the avid support (in print) by David Duke are only a couple of examples. Along with evolution denial (on film) Ron, a physician of sorts, is gushed over by woo-meister supreme Dr. Joseph Mercola. More Zionist plots?
Probably just a coincidence, just like CNN's you-tube debate. Except CNN had a half dozen more.
Here is a question:
When a blogger blogs about something that is found to be based on inaccurate or massaged facts, do people jump all over them, write lengthy comments to and/or link and blog about their error?
Oh yeah!
And should it not be the same with network news?
Yes!
Demanding truthful news is not being a conspiracy theorist, a liberal or conservative, American or Canadian.
Post a Comment