An Embarrassing Moment For Chris Wallace
By CSPANJunkie Wednesday Nov 04, 2009 10:30am
November 03, 2009 NBC Jay Leno
November 03, 2009 NBC Jay Leno
Chris Wallace had a chance to prove to America that he actually has journalistic integrity and is not part of the Fox Sphere of phony reporting when he interviewed Rush Limbaugh on Fox News Sunday. What we got was FOX News #1, fair and balanced reporter acting like a bowl of jelly for Limbaugh's rants. During his post mortem of FNS, he topped his uninformative and ridiculous interview of Limbaugh thus way:
I just want to give you my reaction. First of all I had never met him. Very nice, very sweet and I've have to say vulnerable guy and if you watch the interview you'll see because he talks very candidly about drug rehab...
Wow, is Wallace this dimwitted? Rush is doing a major interview with FNS and he's shocked, shocked I tell you that he's such a sweet guy. Did Wallace want to date him or interview him? I couldn't tell, could you?
Chris Wallace has been a very vocal critic of the Obama administration and has even gone so far as to say that the White House is a big bunch of crybabies. Did you ever hear him ever say anything like that before of another administration?
When Anita Dunn called Fox News an arm of the Republican Party on CNN, that didn't make Wallace happy either.
On Bill O'Reilly's program he said that his show is a truly fair and balanced program:
WALLACE: ...That’s exactly my position: I think Fox News Sunday is a truly fair and balanced show.
O’REILLY: You’re not an ideological show at all.
WALLACE: No. And it’s like they refuse to take “yes” for an answer. There’s a kind of childishness or pettiness about them…
Really? Then where was Wallace's "balance" with Rush? If you're operating as a real interviewer, then Wallace would have had a handful of tough questions that would ask him some other than his opinions. Rush Limbaugh rarely goes on TV except for Fox, and would never do a political talk show where an anchor could actually have a week to prepare at least some moderately difficult questions for him.
So when Rush decided to go on Wallace's show, it was a chance for him to ask questions that would typically be skeptical of his positions. Instead, Wallace acted like a fashion reporter talking about a new line of footwear and stood there listening to typical Limbaugh rants without no fact checking or follow questions.
He could have at least made some sort of effort. After Limbaugh made the outrageous statement that President Obama didn't care about Afghanistan, the best Wallace could do was grin and say, you don't really believe that?
And when his question came up about Limbaugh being rejected by the NFL, couldn't Wallace have at least read some of Limbaugh's comments back to him and make him defend his racist comments about African Americans? All he did was give Rush a platform to whine about a "conspiracy" against him.
The news media that so quickly supported Fox News against the White House should now turn their sights on Chris Wallace and ask themselves if he isn't playing his part perfectly for Roger Ailes.
This interview was an embarrassment and Wallace should be held accountable by his media peers. If Jake Tapper of ABC or any other media entity wants to defend Fox, then they need to hold those who make a mockery out of the profession accountable.
From Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol is hoping that people will see the lines for H1N1 vaccines and come to the conclusion that the government can't run anything properly. As Juan Williams points out, that's what happens when you have Republicans who don't believe in government running things and don't want government to work as we saw in George's Bush's complete indifference to the plight of the victims were during Hurricane Katrina. Williams should have also pointed out to him that Republicans managed to make sure FEMA worked pretty well when it benefited them politically in Florida.
As Williams also noted, these are private companies working with the government that failed to deliver the vaccines in the time frame promised. Fox News and much of the rest of the media seem to have a problem deciding on whether to fear monger about whether vaccines are safe or not and people being forced to get them as Jon Stewart pointed out not long ago on The Daily Show and complaining about them not being delivered fast enough. Now we've got Kristol conflating receiving vaccinations to the government being capable of administering health insurance.
Wallace: Bill you’ve never liked the Democratic health care plan in its various iterations and you especially don’t like this version. In fact you say it combines the most unpopular Democratic and Republican proposals in the last generation.
Kristol: Right, it’s got the Medicare cuts that almost doomed the Gingrich revolution in 1995, the Pelosi Medicare cuts dwarf the Gingrich Medicare cuts of 1995 and it’s got tax hikes—the tax hikes which the Clintons and the Democratic Congress passed on a party line vote in 1993 that cost them the Congress in 1994. And Nancy Pelosi has pulled off a great feat; you called it a compromised vote. It’s like a compromise between awful and horrendous you know. She’s combined tax hikes and Medicare cuts in the same bill in a bill that does nothing to improve the average Americans’ health care or to improve the cost of the average Americans’ health insurance. It’s an amazing feat that she’s done and now she’s pushing this bill, this huge government take over of the health care system at the moment when we have an experiment, an ongoing experiment in government health care—the swine flu epidemic—an emergency the president called it.
If you like how the government’s run swine flu with lines and cues and promises that haven’t come through in terms of having the vaccines available—if you like the government’s swine flu program, you’ll love Pelosi-Care.
The nation's most "fair and balanced" network gave up over 20 minutes of its premiere Sunday "news" show to nation's loudest conservative voice. With little resistance, Fox News' Chris Wallace allowed Rush Limbaugh to continually attack President Barack Obama. Limbaugh called Obama "the man-child president," accused him of visiting the families of fallen troops for a photo op and said the president doesn't care about the war in Afghanistan.
"You suggest that he is taking all of this time to decide what to do in Afghanistan to keep his left wing base on board for health care reform," suggested Wallace.
"Well, it's partly that, but I also don't think he cares much about it," replied Limbaugh. "See, this is -- I know this is going to sound controversial, but i don't think he cares."
Limbaugh went on to call health care reform an "attack on liberty" and an "attack on freedom."
"We've never seen this kind of radical leader at such a high level of power in this county," said Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh isn't endorsing Sarah Palin for president in 2012 but he says she's ready for the job now.
"One thing I do not do is follow conventional wisdom, and the conventional wisdom of Sarah Palin is "She's not smart enough. She needs to bone up on the issues. She's a little unsophisticated. Alaska, Where's that?, [She] doesn't have the pedigree,'" Limbaugh told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "She's the only thing that provided a spark for the Republican Party. This is not an endorsement, but i do have profound respect for Sarah Palin. There are not very many politicians who have been through what she's been put through and still able to smile and be ebullient and upbeat. This woman, I think, is tough," he said.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has gone too far with his latest attack against President Barack Obama, according to Sen. Carl Levin. "The comments of the former vice president were totally out of bounds. I don't think he has any credibility left with the American people," Levin told Fox News' Chris Wallace.
Cheney accused Obama of "dithering" on making a decision to send more troops to Afghanistan during a speech in D.C. Wednesday. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs rejected that criticism Thursday.
"What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform and to the American public," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously."
President Barack Obama accused Fox News as operating in a talk radio format. Fox News only strengthened that argument Sunday as they allowed only White House detractors to comment on the situation. Chris Wallace went so far as to suggest the White House was using mob tactics in it's "war against Fox News." Of course, Fox couldn't find any White House defenders to appear on the Sunday talk show.
It's "what some people are calling the administration's Chicago way of doing business," said Wallace referring to a scene from the classic mobster movie "The Untouchables." Wallace's comparison follows other commentary by the right wing echo chamber. The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel was one of the first:
A White House set on kneecapping its opponents isn't, of course, entirely new. (See: Nixon) What is a little novel is the public and bare-knuckle way in which the Obama team is waging these campaigns against the other side.
Glenn Beck followed the script with a rant about the White House "beatdown" of its enemies the following day.
That's the Chicago way and now we have it in Washington with Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama.
What was it that Obama promised on the campaign trail? Oh yeah, a "new kind of politics." America didn't think the "new" politics would be even worse than the "old" politics.
Agree with the administration? Fantastic. Dare to stand in the way of "reform"? Uh-oh.
No longer is it a gentlemen's disagreement that can be debated. No, you are going to play ball or get a beatdown.
Media Matters put together some examples of how Fox opinion bleeds into Fox "News."
Continuing his Anita Dunn jihad -- in fact, he devoted nearly his entire hour yesterday to attacking Dunn speciously -- Glenn Beck featured a segment with an anonymous "Concerned Parent" who actually attended the high-school commencement ceremony at which Dunn delivered her now-notorious "Mao" remarks. To protect his identity from the evil White House thugs who no doubt would brutalize the poor fellow, they altered his voice and showed him only in silhouette.
But John Aravosis noted a particular family resemblance between this silhouette and a familiar profile at Fox News"
Well, today America's favorite sociopath had a super duper double secret "anonymous" parent on to complain about a graduation speech that Ms. Dunn gave a while back. The thing is, when you look at the alleged parent, who was speaking from FOX's Washington, DC bureau, he sure looks an awful lot like FOX's own Chris Wallace. Check out the screen capture above from the TV. I posted a normal photo of Wallace to the left, and one in which I scrunched his head to the right (since the anonymous parent looks like they scrunched the video of his head, to further disguise him). Is it just me, or are those trademark ears and helmet-head hair just a little too similar to Chris Wallace's?

That's always fun speculation. But then Richard Wolffe of Newsweek went on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night and pointed out that there was more than just a resemblance:
Wolffe: Look at how this video has just popped up about Anita Dunn and her graduation ceremony of her own son. You know, this video, which was not available for public record, happened to pop up on the Glenn Beck show. And it's the same school where Chris Wallace spoke the year before because his kids also went there.
Was that coincidence, or is Fox determined to take this to another level? That's not about news, it's about personal attacks. Look, they may enjoy it for all sorts of commercial reasons. But it goes way beyond the commercial aspect here. There is an unholy jihad going on.
Someone needs to ask Chris Wallace if he is Beck's "Concerned Parent." Just, you know, to clear things up.
Chris Wallace claiming to "fact check" Anita Dunn for daring to say that Fox News hasn't covered the John Ensign scandal. This didn't look like much of a "fact checking" to me. While I have seen some scant coverage of the Ensign scandal on Fox by the likes of Shep Smith, this has hardly been a leading story on Fox News.
So what example does Wallace decide to use to prove they're covered the Ensign scandal? Wallace asking Eric Cantor one question about John Ensign. That's it. No other clips to support that anyone else on his network has covered the story. Just one clip of him asking Eric Cantor--one question.
I hate to break it to you Chris, but that's not covering the John Ensign story. This is covering the John Ensign story.
This is covering the John Ensign story.
The Rachel Maddow Show: John Ensign's Deepening Hole
This is covering the John Ensign story.
The Rachel Maddow Show: Tom Coburn Caught Lying About His Role in Ensign Affair
This is covering the John Ensign story.
Ensign Claims He Complied with Senate Ethics Rules, Says He'll Cooperate With Investigations
This is covering the John Ensign story.
Rachel Maddow: John Ensign Did Have Contact With Doug Hampton on Lobbying Matters
I'd also like for Chris Wallace to explain to us why Fox News sat on the story for five days after this happened: Husband Of Ensign's Girlfriend To Fox's Kelly: Help Me Expose Senator's "Relentless Pursuit Of My Wife" and allowed the Las Vegas Sun to report it instead. We're all shocked Wallace didn't bother to bring that up, right?
How about C-Street? Has Fox News covered the C-Street story? If you're ignoring the C-Street house scandal Chris Wallace, you're not covering the John Ensign scandal as well.
The Rachel Maddow Show: C-Street Part II
Here's Rachel's coverage of the C-Street house from back in June. Fox News was all over this story...right Chris?? Note to Chris Wallace, this is what something called journalism looks like. Not asking Eric Cantor one question about a scandal you haven't covered.
White House communications director Anita Dunn has said Fox News "often operates as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican party." Karl Rove, former senior advisor to George W. Bush, responded by saying "the White House is engaging in its own version of [Nixon's] media enemies list" Sunday.
Sen. Arlen Specter told Fox News' Chris Wallace that the Republican Party was the party of "no, no, no" when it comes to passing meaningful health care reform. While Specter believes the public option is "gaining momentum" within the Democratic Party, the GOP is the "party of obstructionism," said Specter.
UPDATE: Joe Sestak and Ned Lamont will be on C&L live chatting with us tomorrow, Monday Oct. 19th at 3pm PST/6pm EST so don't miss it.
I suppose Bill Kristol fancies himself the "grown up" during this argument on Fox News Sunday. While discussing whether President Obama should be increasing troop levels in Afghanistan or not, Juan Williams points out that President Obama already gave Gen. McChrystal 21,000 additional troops this year, and the result has been nothing but increased casualties. Later in the segment Kristol responds.
Wallace: I know there are political pressures but I would like to think that this President—I do think that this President is trying to make the right decision. There is no guarantee if you give McChrystal the 60,000 troops that it’s going to work…(crosstalk) …particularly given the nature of the government that is in control in Afghanistan.
Kristol: Look, what is better about giving him, “giving him”—I like that—why do we have to use that formulation?—The President is sending as many troops as he thinks he should send, as many troops as he thinks best to accomplish the mission—unless he wants to abandon the mission. But he doesn’t want to abandon the mission. What argument… what serious grown up argument is there that sending 15,000 is any better than sending 40,000 troops when the generals, Gen. McChrystal and Gen. Petraeus think 40,000 is what we need to adequately resource the counter-insurgency.
Maybe we shouldn’t send so many bullets either—we shouldn’t send too many vehicles. They’re very expensive. I mean this notion that we’re sending—that we’re going to have more casualties is ridiculous Juan. Short term of course when you engage the enemy you might have more casualties. Ask any soldier or marine over there, “Would you prefer to have 110,000 of you or 70,000 of you?”—that we are stretched too thin. If we’re going to fight, let’s fight the war.
So when are you signing up to go over there Bill? Liz? Both of you ready to suit up and go put your lives on the line over there? I think if you asked those soldiers what they'd rather be doing, most of them would rather be home. Not on their third, fourth and fifth tours of duty.
Liz Cheney told Fox News' Chris Wallace that President Barack Obama should not travel to Oslo in December to accept the Nobel Prize. Cheney called the prize a "farce" that could only be legitimized if family of U.S. military accepted it.
"I think the president himself understands he didn't earn this prize and therefore the notion that this white house has said he would go to Oslo to accept the prize would add to the farce," said Cheney.
She offered the following proposal: "I think what he ought to do, frankly, is send the mother of a fallen American soldier to accept the prize on behalf of the U.S. military. Frankly, to send the message to remind the Nobel committee that each one of them sleeps soundly at night because the U.S. armed forces, because the U.S. military is the greatest peacekeeping force in the world today."
It should come as no surprise that neoconservative columnist Bill Kristol disagrees with the Nobel committee. He responded to the award with sarcasm. "It's hard for me to be objective about this because I'm so disappointed personally. I was up early Friday morning. I thought the phone might ring, you know. Pundits for peace. I deserve it pretty much. President Obama and I have done about the same amount to bring about world peace, I think," said Kristol.
Sen. Lindsey Graham believes the US should shoulder the responsibility of attacking Iran if an attack is necessary. An attack by the US is preferable to an an attack by Israel, according to Graham.
"I think an Israeli attack on Iran is a nightmare for the world, because it will rally the Arab world around Iran and they're not aligned now. It's too much pressure to put on Israel," Graham told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday.
He continued, "Military action should be the last resort anyone looks at, and I would rather our allies and us take military action if it's necessary."
But Graham doesn't think an attack should be limited to airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. "If we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities. We should destroy their ability to make conventional war. They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float," said Graham.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss agrees. "The problem with military action also is that you're probably not going to be able to stop the production of uranium by just a simple airstrike. Lindsey's right. It's an all or nothing deal. And is it worth that at this point in time when we know they have the capability. We can slow them down, but a full-out military strike is what it would take," said Chambliss.
John Amato:
These warmongers are in their element in this clip. It's bad enough that members of Congress are talking about attacking Iran on national TV. Have they ever seen a country they wouldn't like to blow up? Not only do they want to strike the possible nuke sites, but want to engage in all out warfare regardless of how many civilians were to be killed. They forget to mention how the Arab world would feel about us if we were to strike Iran too. Do they think they would be putting America at risk for their Iran war fantasies? And do they honestly believe American would side with these Neocon war hawks that would actually put us in a third front?
I hadn't seen Eric Burns, the president of Media Matters, on TV previously, but he appeared on Countdown with David Shuster yesterday, and finally said what has needed saying for some time:
Fox News is not a news source. It's a political propaganda operation. And it needs to be treated that way.
Shuster and Burns were launching off Fox's most ludicrous recent endeavor to smear the Obama administration, by using videos of schoolchildren to charge that Obama wants to "indoctrinate" them. As they discuss, this is so hypocritical and absurd that it's hard to believe anyone actually is buying it:
SHUSTER: So explain to me, why is it indoctrination when kids sing about President Obama, but it's patriotism when kids sing about President Bush and FEMA?
BURNS: Well, David, it's not indoctrination to anybody except Karl Rove, Josh Bolten, Roger Ailes -- the rest of the Bush administration in exile over at Fox News, because they are trying to push a political agenda. And they're trying to destroy this administration, and they'll use any means necessary to do it.
And just to give you a little example of this, James O'Keefe, who is the author of one of the suspect ACORN videos that there have been a lot of questions surrounding, told Chris Wallace recently on Fox News that he was employing tactics that would, quote, "destroy his political enemies." So that's what this is about.
There's nothing abnormal about folks talking and children learning about their president and learning to be -- learning about their democracy through talking about the president. I did it when I was a kid.
Then they got to what this is really all about:
SHUSTER: And is that the general theme here with the right-wing media, I mean, undermining the president by manufacturing controversies, because many of the actual Obama policies are favored by the majority of Americans?
BURNS: Absolutely. We've seen it day after day. You know, Glenn Beck is the smearer in chief over at Fox News. And we see new charts, you know, documenting some new vast conspiracy theory every day, new attacks, and it's a constant barrage.
And I'll tell you, this right-wing noise machine has been ginned up. It's never been more ferocious, and their goal is simple -- as Rush Limbaugh stated at the beginning of the year -- they want Obama to fail. Roger Ailes said that this is the Alamo for conservatives and that Fox is the voice of the opposition.
So, this is no longer a news organization. This is a political organization, and their aim is to destroy a progressive policy agenda. They'd rather win in the ballot box than see any sort of real debate on health care. It's a real shame.
Every liberal who even considers going on Fox to act as props for their propaganda machine should stop and think again.
Moreover, every consumer of the news -- conservative, centrist, or liberal -- needs to understand that Fox is not a reliable source of information.
Mainstream media in general have become less reliable, but most of them strive to be factually accurate, even if they skew ideologically somewhat. But this skew has more to do with framing and news selection than the actual reporting.
This is not the case at Fox. It deliberately broadcasts falsehoods and fake information to serve its ideological agenda.
No doubt this makes the Kool-Aid drinkers of the right happy. But for anyone else -- particularly anyone who relies on accurate information for their business or occupation or the livelihoods -- Fox News is a wasteland or outright disinformation that anyone with smidgen of intelligence will avoid.
We need more people like Eric Burns making this point.