Chris Wallace

Fox News Is Scared Of Ron Paul

Posted by on January 1, 2008 at 1:04 pm. 3 Comments :

Fox canceledA Republican presidential primary forum in New Hampshire is set to proceed on January 8, two days before the New Hampshire primary, without the participation of Ron Paul. Paul’s exclusion has understandably infuriated his supporters but it has also revealed a(nother) gaping hypocrisy at Fox News.

Never mind for the moment that Paul is polling ahead of Fred Thompson, who has been invited to participate. And set aside the fact that Paul has broken fund raising records, accumulating over $19 million dollars in the last quarter.

The part of this story that I find noteworthy is that Fox News, who has lambasted Democrats for declining to appear in Fox-sponsored debates, is now using questionable criteria to decide whom they will permit to grace their debate stage. Fox thinks it’s inexcusable for Democrats to voluntarily refuse to subject themselves to the abuse of a network that has been overtly hostile to them, but that it’s perfectly swell for the network to involuntarily refuse to allow viable candidates to take part in their supposedly public forums.

Fox News, and their disciples, has said that Democrats are just scared to appear on the network. Now Paul has accused the network of being scared of him:

“They are scared of me and don’t want my message to get out, but it will. They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative.”

Chris Wallace, the host of Fox News Sunday, will be the moderator of the New Hampshire forum. But he and Fox News have declined to comment on the Paul controversy. Wallace didn’t have any such hesitation when called upon to comment on the Democrats:

“I think the Democrats are damn fools [for] not coming on Fox News.”

Well, Ron Paul wants to come on Fox News but Fox won’t let him. This is a thorough vindication of the Democrat’s decision to shun Fox. Now it’s the Republicans turn to suffer the prejudices practiced by Murdoch, Ailes, Wallace, etc. It serves them right. Perhaps now they will realize that a network that traffics in propaganda and bias is not beneficial even it is slanted your favor. If Republicans were interested in doing the right thing (for once), they would join the Democrats’ embargo on Fox and steer their candidates away. [For more on why all Democrats and progressives should stay the Hell off of Fox, read Starve The Beast]

Now, I’m no disciple of Ron Paul. In fact, I regard him as a dangerous political anachronism who would roll back gains in civil rights, foreign affairs, economic justice, and more. He advocates a deregulation agenda that would permit corporations to run roughshod over public interests including abandoning Net Neutrality. But Republican voters have made him a contender in their primary process and it isn’t up to Fox News to weed him out.

Chris Wallace Is A Damn Fool

Posted by on December 11, 2007 at 1:52 pm. 2 Comments :

Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, is still smarting from the Democrats’ refusal to submit themselves to the abuse that passes for debate on the Fox News Channel. Back in February, the Democratic Party pulled out of a debate that was scheduled to be broadcast by Fox News. It was a rare show of courage to deny the Republican network another opportunity to disparage the Democrats running for president. They should expand on that example and refuse all appearances on Fox. (see Starve The Beast). Rupert Murdoch and his media megaphone is openly hostile to their agenda and representatives. Fox will only use such appearances to distort their message and derail their mission. But Wallace is holding a grudge and recently told Politico:

“I think the Democrats are damn fools [for] not coming on Fox News. And my guess is that once you get a nominee, they probably will come on, because they know that we get a lot of voters they are going to need if they are going to win the election.”

And why wouldn’t they come on? Why wouldn’t they be consumed with giddy anticipation at the mere thought of appearing on a network whose hosts refer to them as “damn fools?” You’ll probably have to hire extra security to keep them from rushing the doors.

Certainly they are aware of how desperately they need you and how truly concerned you are about their prospects for winning the election. They know full well how many Democratic voters are devoted viewers of Fox News. Never mind the fact that…

“…research revealed that Fox viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88% to 7%. Only Republicans were more united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.”

If there is anything that Wallace cares about it’s fairness. Well, that and balance, but let’s leave his mental state out of this. In further remarks to Politico, Wallace wonders…

“Just imagine if the Republicans, under pressure from right-to-life groups, refused to appear on CNN or MSNBC. I think there would be holy unshirted hell. I think there would be such talk about these people being captives of the extreme right wing and why are they afraid to answer questions. And I think the absence of that is very telling. At this point, it has become kind of a loyalty test inside the Democratic Party, … pandering to the far-left-wing. And we live with it.”

It turns out that we don’t have to use our imagination. Anyone who has watched any of the Republican debates can see that they are captives of the extreme right wing. Plus (keep your shirts on, hell or otherwise), Republicans have already implemented a boycott of MSNBC:

“We don’t mind skipping MSNBC. No one watches that channel anyway,” says a high-placed Republican consultant […] Word is, a growing number of GOP lawmakers have become mysteriously “unavailable” when asked to appear on MSNBC.

Wallace’s comments are proof of a threat issued earlier this year by the AP’s David Bauder when he warned that…

“A feud against Fox might not be the best long-term plan, either. People there have been known to hold a grudge.”

Holding grudges against news subjects is not exactly the sort of behavior engaged in by reputable journalists. Neither is calling them “damn fools” because they won’t help you increase your advertising revenue by sharing the stage with known enemies pretending to be reporters. Therefore, I suppose we can forgive Fox because they have never aspired to being reputable journalists in the first place. And Wallace might want to think twice about how he sweet talks politicians and other newsmakers to appear on his 4th ranked Sunday blatherfest. For the entire four years that Wallace has hosted Fox News Sunday, it has consistently lost the ratings battle to ABC’s “This Week,” CBS’s “Face the Nation” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Who needs who, Chris?

In the end, Wallace is just trying to keep his sense of humor:

“I used to laugh and dismiss this talk about how we were – that there was a liberal bias in the mainstream media. But I have to say in the four years I’ve been at Fox, I’ve come to believe that there is a bias.“

In that case, the four years he’s spent at Fox have taught him something – Fox is biased. Sure, it’s something everybody else has known all along, but Chris Wallace is a damn fool. We’re lucky he’s learned anything.

Chris Wallace: A Hen In The Fox House

Posted by on April 20, 2007 at 9:34 am. NO Comments :

Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, was interviewed by Stephen Battaglio of TV Guide. His performance reveals an ineffectual spokesperson struggling to embrace his network’s prejudices. Many of the questions dealt with the Democrats’ rejection of Fox News as a host for their presidential primary debates. If Wallace’s answers represent the Fox viewpoint, Democrats should consider rejecting appearances on his program as well – though not because they would have anything tangible to fear.

Some excerpts:

TVGuide: Why do you think the Democratic candidates for president have pulled out of the debates cosponsored by Fox News?
Wallace: I think there is a sense of empowerment on the part of the Democrats. They won [the House and Senate] and they’re feeling their oats. In addition, I think the left wing of the party – and I’m talking about the “net roots” – have decided to try to put Democratic candidates through a kind of loyalty test.

Wallace doesn’t bother to explain how rebuffing Fox’ invitations translates into either loyalty or a demonstration of empowerment. The only way for his assertions to make sense is if he is conceding that Fox deserves their reputation for bias. Why else would there be a benefit for Democrats to snub the network? And while his answer includes a baseless swipe at the party’s “left wing/net roots,” he nimbly avoids stirring any substance into his response. For instance, admitting that Democrats may have an aversion to handing over their intra-party debate to an overtly hostile network.

TVGuide: Why do you think they are trying to marginalize Fox News? It really seems like some of the party activists are trying to make Fox News seem less legitimate.
Wallace: I don’t think it’s the presidential candidates. Frankly, I think they are pandering to that constituency […] It will end when they need us. They’ll need us when we get closer to the general election and [they] are going to want to reach the independents, moderate Republicans and Democrats who watch Fox News routinely and form the majority of our audience.

First of all, it is Fox News that is making Fox News seem less legitimate, not Democrats. And in support of that effort, Wallace makes an utterly absurd declaration as to the composition of the majority of the Fox audience. Democrats do not need Fox and the evidence of that was documented in this poll by the Mellman Group who found that…

“Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.”

TVGuide: Do you think they have a case, in terms of feeling that Fox News Channel has been unfair to them?
Wallace: No more than I think Republicans have a case in saying that the mainstream media has been unfair to them.

There are three very profound revelations in that brief response. First, just who does Wallace think the “mainstream media” is when Fox News is the #1 cable news network in the country and its parent, News Corp., additionally owns multiple newspapers, magazines, Internet sites and TV and radio stations? Secondly, it should be noted that Wallace is not making a distinction between Fox News and some other news entity. He is positioning Fox against all other news entities that he ambiguously labels mainstream. That confrontation illustrates his perception of Fox as a beleaguered outcast amongst its journalistic peers which means, by extension, that it espouses a unique (i.e. biased) point of view. Thirdly, he doesn’t actually answer the question as to whether Democrats’ objections to Fox are justified. He merely insinuates that the other kids do it too.

TVGuide: Do you think the popularity of Fox’s conservative commentators overshadows the straight news reporting?
Wallace: The people who want to misunderstand Fox will use some of the prime-time conservative commentators as an excuse.

Of course they can also use Brit Hume, Carl Cameron, Jim Angle, Neil Cavuto, and the former Fox anchor, Tony Snow, who has since been transferred to the Fox division at the White House. The premise of the question assumes facts not in evidence – i.e. that Fox is capable of “straight news reporting.”

Wallace (cont’d): Over the last three years we’ve had Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean repeatedly – I think they are able to distinguish between Fox News and the opinion shows. We don’t have a problem booking Democrats at all. It didn’t work out the way anyone expected, but we had Bill Clinton in September.

It’s rather astonishing that Wallace actually brings up, without any hint of irony, the Bill Clinton interview, of which the highlight was Clinton’s withering accusations of bias on the part of Wallace and Fox. However, he fails to grasp that Democrats, by not participating in Fox-sponsored debates, are not engaging in a boycott of all appearances on the network. There is big difference between routine media availability and party-specific events.

In the end, I suppose we all should be grateful for Wallace’s inadvertent transparency. It makes it that much easier to prove that Fox really does deserve to be marginalized as an illegitimate news source. Thanks, Chris.

Fox Pulls Clinton Video From YouTube

Posted by on September 25, 2006 at 3:51 pm. NO Comments :

This weekend’s big interview was the Chris Wallace ambush of Bill Clinton. After promising to divide the time between Clinton’s Global Initiative and everything else, Wallace sandbags Clinton by asking why he didn’t do more to get bin Laden. Clinton wouldn’t take the bait, but did lay into the Fox correspondent, calling it a “conservative hit.”

Ever since, the piece has been replayed and talked about throughout the TV, radio and Internet universe. So, predictably, it ended up on YouTube where its various submissions received more than a million views.

That was until Fox got jealous and insisted that it be removed. This is a perfect demonstration of a corporate media megalith misunderstanding the new media playing field. And it also underscores the necessity of keeping Internet media independent. Just imagine the kind of censorship that would prevail if Fox owned YouTube (or if Viacom, who is currently sniffing around it, did).