Frankly Crap
Read more about: Irish Election, Irish Politics, Media 
A few of us thought the first Week in Politics special with Frank Luntz was interesting. The second programme was found to be full of political plants. The third one aired tonight.
There is a lot more to the background to this edition of the programme than meets the eye. I laughed at the pictures of the people from Red C productions on the streets of Roscommon or wherever recruiting participants to take part in a focus group. That is not really how it happened for some of those in the audience.
The first thing that struck me was the way in which we were all led to believe that immigration was a problem – in that one might deduce from what we saw that the majority of the audience thought that it was a negative issue because we were shown them raising the hands to the fact the way it was going was wrong. However that was a very misleading question and portrayal of the answer.
The programme’s producers and it’s reviewers allowed an audience member’s urban myth to be again fertilised about how immigrants get hand outs over and above the rest of the population – well maybe it’s useful to see yet again racism in operation but when are we going to hear that immigrants don’t get handouts over and above Irish workers and those working pay tax like the indigenous population. (Amazing how someone owning up to being illegal herself whilst in the US was pointing out she paid tax too like some sort of badge of honour – what does she think the Polish women staffing her local Aldi or the nurse from India in her local hospital are doing with their wages? Sucking them tax free out of the ether??)
When are we going to reflect on the Irish backhander/on the sly tax evasion that huge numbers of people participate in? Those who pay someone to do the odd job and hope to avoid the VAT etc.
Anyway I digress…there could have been members of the audience that thought that government policies/society in general was unfair to immigrants and that something needed to be done about that. However the way in which the matter was dealt with on the programme we all now think that immigration and the huge influx of immigrants is big issue in rural Ireland and that politicians should talk about it.
The rest of the programme actually told us nothing new from the previous ones – people like Bertie, lots of them have met him, they find Enda boring, they hate Michael McDowell and they laugh in all the right places at Pat Rabitte because they can understand what he says.
The programme frankly was boring Frank – how much did RTE pay for him to come over again? And where are the Democrat strategists and analysts in the campaign coverage line up?
Luntz has previously described his work involving focus groups as
a direct, sensitive, and interactive method of assessing public opinion, accomplishing what telephone studies cannot. It approaches attitudes and priorities tangentially by allowing respondents to talk freely and to choose descriptive categories significant to them (rather than to the pollster, or even to the client).
He kept putting words into peoples mouths, it was hardly sensitive or interactive. He cued up the FF/Lab option as the final option as if the programme makers had it decided already and told the audience this is what they were saying and like Pavlov’s dogs after 4 and half hours in studio most of them agreed.
True, true. The programme was terrible. and Mark Cohen, of all people, calls this Sophist’s card in a review of a similiar programme Luntz did for BBC’s newsnight.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1968794,00.html
Luntz himself is a slimy piece of work. The Daily Show interviewed/set him up, and said that Luntz’s whole work is akin to “spraying perfume on dog turds.” Partly responsible for Newt Gentrich’s Contract With America – a fact he mentioned in tonight’s programme – he also advised Bush to “keep the public confused” about climate change. He continues to produce a briefing book for republicans of words and phrases to use to win the debate.
His own site is quite open in its objectives. “We’ll show you the words that work and the best way to use them – guaranteed.” not the rights or wrongs of the argument, or even the argument itself, but the “words” alone. Luntz is all brass and no knickers. Perfect for Ireland these days, I suppose. and Ireland have just given him a big fat pay cheque for a worthess piece of eye candy.
The programme’s producers and it’s reviewers allowed an audience member’s urban myth to be again fertilised about how immigrants get hand outs over and above the rest of the population
In fairness to the programme on this point, it wasn’t there to inform the voters or correct their ill-informed views, it was just there to record them… frankly I sat cursing the absolute morons who attacked McDowell for making people scared about drinking and driving but I don’t think it was Frank Luntz’s job to point out the idiocy of that seemingly (in that room at least) popular opinion.
That said it did seem as though most people were skeptical and misinformed over immigrants (although a counter-point was made in their favour) – this could be down to simple chance or RTÉ editing, I’m not sure.
I do agree, however, that it told us nothing that we didn’t already know. It was interesting to see the exact reactions of the public to the speeches and posters but everyone knows that Fianna Fail’s greatest asset is its leader, everyone knows Enda Kenny has oration issues, everyone knows Michael McDowell is disliked (although it was interesting to note the audience’s concern over rising crime, but their failure to pin that tail on this particular donkey, choosing Bertie instead), everyone knows Trevor Sergent gave a lack-luster Ard Fheis speech and everyone knows Pat Rabbitte did quite the opposite (partly because he was first out of the block with a promise of tax cuts).
I also agree that the conclusion seemed a little forced – I think most of the people there weren’t thinking so much in coalition terms as they were individual party terms – so they like Bertie or they like Rabbitte but they haven’t given the combo much thought. It also seemed as though half or less actually responded in the positive to this combination, but it was taken that this was the vastly popular option on the day.
I found this programme interesting however there is a tendency for the more vocal audience members to set the tone for the rest of the group. This was particularly true for the person who answered the question on immigration.
Ah the Fine Gaelers are all upset.
Since the first show the result has been Fianna Fail and Labour with no real desire for Fine Gael and in particular Enda Kenny to be in Government. Instead of addressing the problems within Fine Gael (like people such as John Deasey have tried to) the Fine Gaelers have instead attacked the show. Well it’s not just Frank Opinion that indicates Fine Gael are going no where. EVERY opinion poll for the last year has pointed to Fianna Fail & Labour as most likely unless Enda kenny can patch together 4 parties and a few independents. Considering he can’t even patch together his own party this is unlikely. The most damning result was that at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis 65% of Fine Gael members had faith in Labour not joining Fianna Fail. This was spun as faith in the rainbow. The most interesting statistic was that in an opinion poll they KNEW would be leading the news the following day 35% of the die hard Fine Gaelers still said they didn’t trust Labour.
You’re done for lads. Accept it.
stv, why are you hiding? It is strange that while most people blogging and posting from almost all the parties in Ireland show their identities (even the PDs God luv’em), it is the FFers that hide and won’t stick with the one identity.
I wouldn’t attack the show now and haven’t in the past. I think it is an interesting and enjoyable exercise but I don’t think anyone should be basing too much either way on it.
Take the positive rating for what Bert covered in his speech, people like the idea of tax cuts, who doesn’t but they weren’t asked if they believe he would or could deliver them. They didn’t like him taking about what the government has done in health or crime and so he has a credibility. The show is a harmless diversion much like Ardal’s show.
The curious thing is that while FF and Labour would have the numbers after the election to do a deal, they had the numbers last time too, and FF chose the PDs. Also, FF and Labour having numbers doesn’t mean Ahern. B as Taoiseach.
Frank Luntz is a partisan. I now live in the US and Luntz is often paraded out on CNN to give polling to back up Republican ideas. The only thing anyone should pay attention to him on is “framing”, on this issue he is a genius and has helped the GOP with his knowledge. Don’t think for one moment he is independent – he follows his right wing agenda and I’m will help Bush’s allies overseas.
Sty I’m definitely not a FGer…smirks…
One of the (many) problems in the presentation of the programme was the obsession by Luntz on leadership ala presidential style politics. He competely ignored the whims of the PRSTV system, who someone went to school with, the first initial of the surname of the candidate and the local factors etc. which will influence the vote more than what Bert said in City West.
I thought it was interesting for what popped up and it was this curiosity that drew me to the three shows. I agree that the format leaves a lot to be desired and as pointed out by the pundits some people are better at delivering speeches. In fact for me the main strength of the shows was the punditry.
After it was over I was left thinking that it is wide open and that people in the North West think very differently to me and reminded that 32 undecideds will not determine the election. I am not overly bothered by Luntz, he does what he is paid to do, however despicable that may be in some people’s eyes.
Interesting that if he is helping Bush’s alies over seas. Does that mean Michael D Higgins is a neo-con.
The curious thing is that while FF and Labour would have the numbers after the election to do a deal, they had the numbers last time too, and FF chose the PDs. Also, FF and Labour having numbers doesn’t mean Ahern. B as Taoiseach.
But the reasons for that was a) The PDs had 8 seats compared to Labour’s 20 and theoretically would hold far less weight against FF in Government* and b) FF and the PDs had already had a working relationship so the terms of engagement were far easier to resolve – FF/Lab was a whole new situation and almost certainly involved far more concessions on the part of FF.
It was nothing to do with FF having a problem with Labour as they do with SF, or even the Greens (which I would imagine to be the most uncompromising party in coalition discussions based simply on their ideology and once niche support base)
*For what it’s worth I think the PDs got far more than their 8 seats should have commanded