Are candidates -- and press getting "played" at Democratic candidates' forum?

A long-time Professor Kim reader asks the candidates:

Do you feel played by PBS and the Tavis Smiley show in that your debate is going to be analyzed by Republican pollster Frank Luntz? So, after making a principled stand about not being treated unfairly by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and FOX News, you are still going to be treated in that way? Did you ask for a Democratic pollster? What can we the public do to ensure that we’re not being constantly spun by broadcast media?

and she has this message for me:

I believe that Fox is coming to the Democrats via the back door. Frank Luntz is a Republican pollster who is frequently on Fox News trashing Democrats. So, Fox wins after all.

And I’m sorry to see that you’re going to play a part. I know that you’re attending as a journalist but I thought you should be aware of how you’ll be seen by others. I’m appalled that both PBS and Tavis Smiley are being played in this way.

Here's what has her, and many others, upset. Luntz is a so-called "pollster-pundit" with a long list of powerful business and Republican political clients who has been criticized for deceptive practices. He came to prominence for his use of technology that helps clients fine-tune their messages by collecting instant feedback on audience reactions to each phrase. He was reprimanded for his unwillingness to reveal polling data that he said showed widespread public support for the 1994 Republican Contract With America.

During the 2004 Presidential race, he was dropped by MSNBC after it was revealed that he was still doing political work for the Republican Party. In recent years, he has reportedly fallen out of favor with GOP, calling its current leaders "an ethical morass," among other epithets. A Feb. 2007 article by Bill Berkowitz for MediaTransparency.org says, "Luntz, who has been a major player in crafting the great partisan divide in Washington, takes no responsibility for it."

Media Matters is protesting Luntz's involvement in the debate, Their open letter to PBS and Tavis Smiley says, in part:

"While we recognize the importance of analyzing the performance of the Democratic field, it is unconscionable that someone with Luntz's partisan history, open disdain for Democratic priorities and candidates, and record of reported reprimand and censure by his peers would be chosen by PBS for such an important role in a Democratic presidential primary forum."

Prometheus 6, who has supported protests against a Democratic debate sponsored by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus, says he is sure PBS will do the right thing.

Even without his shady past, Luntz seems like an odd choice as an analyst. I don't see any evidence that he is familiar with the issues or constituencies at the core of this particular debate. Ronald Walters or Jennifer Hochshild would have made a lot more sense. We already have too much emphasis on candidates' performance and strategy. How about analysts who can provide some context and critique on the issues instead?

As for me, I hope my coverage will make my intentions clear. No one is paying me to blog this event, and no one has put condition on what we cover. In fact, it's costing money. Having committed to cover this story, I won't back out. What I intend to do is to cover this, as thoroughly and fairly as I can, given the time and resource constraints involved.

Do you think my integrity is compromised by my participation in this forum?

And here are more questions for the candidates.