Chris Wallace

Clinton And Obama On Fox News: A Damage Assessment

Posted by on May 2, 2008 at 6:24 pm. 47 Comments :

Clinton on O'ReillyHillary Clinton’s rendezvous with O’Reilly is now history. All that is left is to try to assess the damage and establish what lessons were learned.

The Damage: Bill O’Reilly’s ratings leaped 81% in total viewers and 43% in the 25-54 demo (two night average). That is a massive, though temporary, increase and it will have the effect of inflating his average over time. I’m assuming that the bulk of the new viewers were Clinton supporters, curious independents, or morbid voyeurs hoping to observe a train wreck. It is highly unlikely that these numbers will endure. Last year I did an analysis that showed that Fox News viewers were more loyal to the network and its stars than they were to Bush or Republicans: The Cult Of Foxonalityâ„¢. O’Reilly’s base audience will quickly return to normal, probably tonight. (For the record, The Factor’s ratings dropped significantly from part one of the Clinton interview, to part two. There was a 12% decline in total viewers and a 26% drop in the 25-54 demo).

However, the damage is done. O’Reilly gets his ratings spike, bragging rights, and legitimacy transferred by osmosis from Clinton. Clinton gets nothing. O’Reilly’s base audience is firmly predisposed against her. The visiting viewers have all had plenty of opportunities to see her on other networks. So if you’re scoring it’s O’Reilly: 1.2 million (viewers) – Clinton: zero.

Clinton on O'ReillyThe Lessons: Now that both Clinton and Obama have capitulated to Fox News, will Fox abandon their crusade to defeat Democrats? Hardly. Consider a couple of the classic taunts frequently leveled at Democrats by Foxies:

“If you can’t deal with Fox how can you deal with Iran or Al Qaeda?”

Now that the Democrats have dealt with Fox, will Fox announce their confidence in the Democrats’ ability to deal with terrorists and hostile nations?

“The Democratic Party is held hostage by “far-left, liberal interests groups” like MoveOn, DailyKos, and MediaMatters, who pressure them to reject Fox.”

Now that the Democrats have accepted Fox, proving that these groups are not controlling them, will Fox cease to make these accusations? Will they refrain from disparaging our patriotism? Will they stop insinuating that we’re socialists? Will they present honestly our positions on war, faith, global warming, health care, etc.?

Clearly the answer to the questions above is “No on all counts!” In fact, the reversion to form has already begun. Chris Wallace can hardly contain his glee that the Democrats have folded. This morning he explained to the Fox & Friends crew why he was in such a good mood:

“…after all the boycotting, after all the huffing and puffing, [the Democrats] have found their way to Fox News, and you know, it’s really fun to watch, and particularly to watch the heartburn among the left-wing base – the anti-war, the MoveOn.org, they can’t stand it.”

In this spew of triumphant ecstasy, Wallace has just admitted his own personal bias against a broad swath of progressive citizens. And, shockingly, it is not just a political bias. He is actually deriving pleasure from the pain of the ideologically diverse majority of Americans who oppose the war. Indeed, he is laughing at them … at us.

He also joked with F&F that John Edwards’ poor performance in the presidential race is somehow attributable to his refusal to go on Fox? By that logic, Obama’s and Clinton’s success in the race is likewise attributable to their refusals to go on Fox. They only just agreed to appear this week, so all of their prior success was achieved without Fox and, therefore, due to its Foxlessness.

O’Reilly has been in just as good a mood as Wallace.

“The greatest thing about this interview . . . is that it’s emasculated all these far-left extortion types like MoveOn and the Kos, which threatened Hillary Clinton and threatened Barack Obama and all the other Democrats.”

So the greatest thing to O’Reilly is “emasculate[ing] all these far-left extortion types.” The most fun for Wallace is “watch[ing] the heartburn among the left-wing base.” It should be noted that the number of members of MoveOn and DailyKos alone exceed the number of viewers of many of Fox’s programs. And there is much more to the liberal base than those two examples. From what part of this should Democrats and progressives draw comfort? Fox doesn’t care about the interview. They don’t care about informing the public. They only care about how badly they can cripple their enemies.

Bill O’Reilly, Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, et al, were flailing pathetically when they were being ignored by the cool kids. We were having a real impact on their ratings, their revenue, their reputation, and their respiration. It was unwise to loosen the screws at this time. Hopefully, after having seen how they’ve reacted to our largess, our Democratic representatives will realize that Fox News is unfriendly and untrustworthy. They will whine about not being invited to the party, but will break all your furniture when you admit them. Then the whining will begin all over again.

Just stay the HELL off of Fox News!

Barack Obama On Fox News Sunday

Posted by on April 28, 2008 at 12:01 pm. NO Comments :

Obama on FoxJust prior to Chris Wallace’s interview of Barack Obama on Fox News Sunday, I argued the futility of making an appearance on Fox:

“A strong performance will net him nothing because the audience is limited in both size and ideological diversity. It will end right there. But the slightest misstep will be magnified a hundred fold throughout the Murdoch empire”

I was right. There were no notable gaffes or exploitable vagaries and, consequently, the interview has all but disappeared. So far today I have not seen a single clip of this program on Fox News (or any other network). This despite the fact that prior to the broadcast it was so highly anticipated and heavily promoted. After Wallace made such a big issue of Obama’s appearance, invented his “Obama Watch” countdown, and called Democrats “damned fools“ for not going on Fox, they have not seen fit to re-air any portion of this news-making broadcast.

On the other hand, Fox News (and most other networks) have been re-playing Rev. Wright’s remarks in speeches before the NAACP and the National Press Club repeatedly all day long. That should tell you something about media priorities. Obviously the words of a controversial ex-pastor are far more important to the press than the words of an actual candidate for president.

As for Wallace’s priorities, Josh Nelson at The Seminal provides this revealing breakdown of questions he asked Obama:

  • Jeremiah Wright: 8 questions
  • Race: 6 questions
  • Reaching Across the Aisle to Republicans: 3 questions
  • The Economy (#1 issue for voters): 2 questions
  • Gas Prices (#2 issue for voters): 0 questions
  • Health Care(#3 issue for voters): 0 questions
  • Iraq (#4 issue for voters): 0 direct questions, 3 through the lens of Petraeus

Barack Obama Falls Into Fox News Sunday Trap

Posted by on April 24, 2008 at 2:03 pm. 7 Comments :

Fox News has begun airing promos announcing that Barack Obama will appear this week on Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday. This is a huge error in judgment and is sorely disappointing. There is literally no advantage for Obama to subject himself to the prejudices of a network that is overtly hostile to his candidacy. What’s worse is that Obama seems to be capitulating to pressure applied by Wallace himself.

Last month, in a fit of pique, Wallace launched the Obama Watch to shame the candidate into granting Wallace an interview. The whole ploy was unprofessional and innately biased as it sought to portray Obama as either uncooperative or afraid. Having succumbed to the tactic, Obama will now be interrogated by a man who has called Democrats “damned fools” on a network that is an endless loop of Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers videos, when they aren’t talking about how elitist or unpatriotic he is.

At this point in the Democratic primary every appearance, every speech, every minute of a candidate’s time is precious. Why Obama thinks that this engagement with Fox in any way benefits him is inexplicable. The potential audience has little to no value for Democrats. And as the perennial fourth place finisher out of the four Sunday news shows, the potential audience is also, well … little.

My previous article, “Fox News: For Republicans Only,” shows clearly that Fox is unabashedly partisan. It’s CEO, Rupert Murdoch, is maxed out to both John McCain and Hillary Clinton in campaign donations. Nothing for Obama. For evidence of Murdoch’s hostile intent one need only to refer to his New York Post’s endorsement of Obama that reads more like an indictment. [See Starve The Beast for a detailed analysis of why it is not only pointless, but harmful, for Democrats to appear on Fox News]

This is nothing but a trap. It makes Obama look small for having conceded. It exposes him to risks from a pseudo-news operation that is working openly with his opponents to orchestrate his defeat. A strong performance will net him nothing because the audience is limited in both size and ideological diversity. It will end right there. But the slightest misstep will be magnified a hundred fold throughout the Murdoch empire. Look for any rhetorical slip to be broadcast incessantly on the Fox cable and radio networks. Watch for it to be published in over 100 News Corp. newspapers and magazines. Then wait for the rest of the media to pick it up and pile on.

Obama on FoxIn addition, Obama’s presence will lend his credibility to a news enterprise that has none of its own. Fox will immediately brag about having made him cry “uncle” and cite it as a victory that proves that they cannot be ignored. They may even edit Obama into future network promos as they just did with Clinton’s campaign chief, Terry McAuliffe.

We can only hope now that Obama has a change of heart or a scheduling conflict that forces him to cancel this interview. Almost any other use of his time will be more productive since this use will be only counterproductive. Fox only wants this so that they can build themselves up and tear the likely Democratic nominee for president down. No good can come of it.

Update: It didn’t take long but, just as I predicted, Fox is already bragging about Obama’s retreat. Chris Wallace responded to charges that his “Obama Watch” was obnoxious saying, “It may have been obnoxious but it was also effective.” He went on to boast that Obama must need Fox because of his loss in Pennsylvania. I told you so.

American Idol Joins The Race For President

Posted by on April 8, 2008 at 3:26 pm. NO Comments :

American IdleOn Wednesday American Idol will present its second annual “Idol Gives Back” broadcast wherein viewers are asked to call in donations to benefit a banquet of charitable enterprises. This year will feature appearances by all three remaining presidential contenders, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. The taped segment by Obama says in part…

“I’d like to say a few words not just as the father of two young girls who are big American Idol fans, but as someone who cares deeply about what tonight’s show is all about. Whether it’s across the street or around the world, Idol Gives Back is proving that when ordinary people come together, they can do extraordinary things.”

I suppose this is one way for Fox to get Obama to go on their network. Of course it is the Fox Entertainment Network, not the Fox News Channel. It is still a poke in the eye to Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday (which does air on FEN), whose juvenile Obama Watch is still counting down the days that Obama has not appeared on that program. Hang tough, Barack. Let Wallace run that Obama Watch clock up another 10,000 ticks.

Personally, I can’t stand American Idol. I think it trivializes art by pitting artists against one another. And I think the contestants are cliche cutouts who rely on theatrics and vocal bling rather than talent and originality. Idols are not created by game shows. They are adopted by fans who are moved by an artist with whom they connect emotionally.

That said, it is admirable that the wealth that flows to this program is being directed to people who are suffering and in need of advocates. Sure, it is also a big advertisement for the program, the network, and the sponsors who will claim credit for the event. But in the end there will be some relief provided for the recipients of the donations collected from this program. Unless, of course, there isn’t. From the New York Times:

“But even as ‘American Idol” and Fox Broadcasting prepare for their second annual star-studded ‘Idol Gives Back’ appeal on Wednesday, officials at the charity have declined to release a formal accounting of last year’s effort.”

The article goes on to say that most of the targeted charities have expressed satisfaction with the distribution of last year’s donations, but it would be nice to have some documentary evidence that they are successfully administrating these funds. Last year $76 million was raised, and estimates are that the figure will increase this year to $100 million. That’s a lot of money not to be fully accounted for.

Update: As it turns out, the jam-packed entertainment bonanza that Idol producers put on last last was so pressed for time that all three presidential candidates were cut out of the program. Thank God they made time for Celine Dion, Miley Cyrus, and Snoop Dogg.

The Obama Watch On Fox News Sunday

Posted by on March 17, 2008 at 3:02 am. NO Comments :

Two weeks ago, I wrote that Chris Wallace was obsessed with absent Democrats when he featured a viewer email inquiring as to why Barack Obama has not appeared on his fourth-rate Sunday talk show. Now Wallace is escalating the obsession with a stunningly juvenile device he calls “The Obama Watch.”

This blatantly prejudicial, unprofessional, and self-serving inanity demonstrates precisely why Obama, and all Democrats, should avoid Fox News at all costs. The idea that an update on a candidate for president consists solely of the candidate’s disinclination to accept an invitation to appear is uniquely Foxian. And by incorporating the audio device from Fox’s own “24” they even reduce this childish prank to little more than a promotion for their entertainment fare.

As I’ve said before, the Fox News embargo is working or they wouldn’t be constantly addressing it. Every mention is a validation of its effectiveness. Add this to Wallace’s previous attempts to bully Democrats onto his program, like the time he called them “damn fools [for] not coming on Fox News;” or the time he blamed “the left wing of the party – and I’m talking about the ‘net roots'” for “put[ting] Democratic candidates through a kind of loyalty test.” Wallace really knows how to charm the objects of his fetish.

If Wallace is looking for an explanation for why he is being snubbed, perhaps he should consider the fact the he and his network persistently insult the guests he is now pursuing. Fox News is hardly a fair and balanced forum for Democrats. He might also be reminded that his program, Fox News Sunday, finishes consistently last amongst the Sunday news interview programs – behind Meet the Press, This Week, and Face the Nation. Tactics like this are not likely to improve those standings.

Chris Wallace Still Obsessed With Absent Democrats

Posted by on March 3, 2008 at 3:01 pm. 1 Comments :

Chris Wallace, the host of Fox News Sunday is still perturbed that he can’t get presidential candidates with a “D” after their name to come play in his sandbox.

Wallace has been particularly obsessed with poking at Democrats who have declined to submit to Fox News abuse. Reading this viewer letter is just another attempt to “shame” Democrats into appearing on his show. To equate the process of international diplomacy with that of face-time on a biased, third-rate cable news channel is beyond idiocy. But it is not beyond Wallace.

Democrats are right to shun Fox and should continue to do so. The strategy is working as evidenced by Wallace’s all-consuming attention to it. If it wasn’t hurting them, they would never mention it. And it is paying off in a couple of significant ways. First, it denies Fox the opportunity to cast more of its slime onto Democrats. Second, Fox misses out on the higher ratings and revenues they would receive from associating with the more popular Democratic candidates. (Fox News Sunday is consistently last amongst the Sunday news interview programs – behind Meet the Press, This Week, and Face the Nation)

Most importantly it maintains the premise that Fox is not a credible news entity and should not be treated as one. Let’s hope the Democrats have the stamina to keep it up throughout the general election.

Chris Wallace Is Even Dumber Than George Bush

Posted by on February 10, 2008 at 2:11 pm. 5 Comments :

Chris Wallace is rocketing to the front of the hack pack in television journalism. His bias and arrogance is thrusting him to new heights of disrepute.

The latest embarrassment occurred during an interview with President Bush for Fox News Sunday. In an exchange revolving around the Bush administration’s use of torture and wiretapping, Wallace sought to capsulize the question for the President.

WALLACE: …are you ever puzzled by all of the concern in this country about protecting [the] rights of people who want to kill us?

I don’t know when I’ve ever heard a more obsequious inquiry from a supposedly professional reporter. The question is swathed in a fawning concern for whether the poor, put upon President is puzzled by treasonous civil libertarians in league with the enemy.

For the record, Chris, we’re not concerned about “protecting the rights of people who want to kill us.” We’re concerned about protecting the rights of Americans and the innocent who are harmed by the administration’s over-reaching. We’re concerned about preserving the Constitution.

You know that you’ve sunk to pitiful depths when the stupendously idiotic premise of your question is rephrased more fairly by no less a fabulist than George W. Bush:

BUSH: That is an interesting way to put it. I wouldn’t necessarily define some of the critics of my policy that way. I would say that they want to be very careful that we don’t overstep our bounds from protecting the civil liberties of Americans.

This concept is so simple that even George, the C-minus Yalie washout, is able to articulate it. But Wallace doesn’t exhibit the slightest awareness that his query is the sort of premium grade suck-up that demeans his profession. This is the same third-rate miscreant who sought to persuade Democrats to participate in Fox-sponsored debates by calling them “damned fools.”

His father must be so ashamed.

Hillary Clinton’s Hypocritical Pimped Out Rage

Posted by on February 8, 2008 at 5:43 pm. 4 Comments :

[Updated with new Clinton response]
First things first. when David Shuster asked, “…doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” he couldn’t have been more wrong. It was inappropriate, demeaning, and unprofessional. In the wake of those remarks, he has apologized on air twice, expressed his regrets personally to the Clintons, and been suspended from broadcasting for an undetermined period of time.

That said, Hillary Clinton’s latest response to NBC News President Steve Capus is rife with hypocrisy and calculated outrage. From the Clinton letter to Mr. Capus:

“Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.”

I’m not sure what criteria she used to assess the apology as “half-hearted,” but the ones I heard from NBC, Shuster, and Keith Olbermann all sounded pretty whole-hearted to me. Yet Clinton seems to be leaving open only one option – to fire Shuster. She may have an ulterior motive for this which I will address later. The letter continues…

“I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language […] Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.”

What I’d like to know is, how on Earth can Clinton ask that of MSNBC without holding Fox News to the same standard?”

That said, there needs to be some measure of perspective inserted into this affair. The term “pimp,” like many other rhetorical incivilities, has been been recast by contemporary social applications. Nobody thinks that MTV’s “Pimp My Ride” is pejorative in context. Pimping has assumed a colloquial definition of either enhancing or promoting the subject. That’s not to say that the traditional meaning is moot, and that is why Shuster is deserving of criticism.

However, Clinton’s response is wholly out of proportion. To threaten to cancel debates on MSNBC because of these comments raises an obvious question: Why did she happily agree to debates with Fox, despite the fact that they have said far worse for much longer about her and pretty much everyone in her party? If the Clinton campaign was truly concerned about not patronizing networks that disparage them, she would have canceled both network’s debates. Her selective outrage reeks of political chicanery, rather than maternal protectiveness.

For me this is not about the Shuster comment which is universally reviled. It is about the Clinton response that is inconsistent and not applied equally to her detractors at Fox whom she has embraced. And while Shuster deserves and has accepted the consequences of his verbal blunder, Fox stubbornly stands by every slur they’ve ever uttered.

While inartfully executed, Shuster’s point was not far off the mark. Politicians have been been likened to whores on more than a few occasions in the last thousand or so years. They engage in campaigns that are drenched with money from those seeking favors. They sell their votes and influence for cash, endorsements, appointments, and attention. And they are certainly not above exploiting their families.

Tucker Carlson RatingsFinally, no one should ignore the supreme irony of Shuster being suspended for offensive remarks he made while filling in for Tucker Carlson. Carlson is well known for making offensive remarks repeatedly, never apologizing, and yet he has never faced suspension. This is a particularly egregious oversight in light of the fact that his show has no business being on the air in the first place. It is a perennial ratings loser to his competition and is the worst performing program on the network. Yet his offenses have yielded nothing, but Shuster, a reporter with a long history of journalistic integrity and achievement is suspended.

This isn’t the first time Shuster was compelled to issue an apology. On the prior occasion, however, his bosses at MSNBC forced him to apologize for a mistake that, as it turned out, he didn’t make. It also isn’t the first time Shuster has butted heads with the Clintons. At KATV in Little Rock, Arkansas, and later at Fox News, he was assigned to the Whitewater investigation (h/t Chip Ramsey). Could this have something to do with the ferocity of Clinton’s attack on Shuster? It should be noted that when he left Fox for MSNBC he was unusually candid about his experience working for Murdoch and company:

“…there wasn’t a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn’t care to take a closer look.”

That rare moment of refreshing honesty will now be overshadowed by the drama that Clinton is stirring up, perhaps motivated by revenge. The right-wing media is already pouncing on this to hammer MSNBC as disreputable. But they should take note that at least this network has taken the responsible steps to repair any damage from the affront. When was the last time that Fox behaved responsibly? Yet Fox is being rewarded by Clinton for their irresponsibility. And speaking of double standards, Will Bunch at Attytood has posted what may be the definitive take on it:

…was it the worst thing ever said about Chelsea Clinton in the public arena? Not even close.

“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”
— Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.

[…snip…]

Maybe MSNBC should ban John McCain from appearing on the network for a while. And given Hillary Clinton’s strong stance on the matter, I assume she won’t be debating McCain this fall, either?

So one stupid slip by an otherwise outstanding reporter draws threats of a boycott, but years of premeditated character assassination earns a personal appearance on a televised debate that will bring viewers, revenue, and prestige to the offending network. Fox has already started touting the victory of snagging Clinton for the debate, even though there may not be one as Sen. Obama has yet to accept. That didn’t stop Fox’s Chris Wallace from telling A Daily Show’s Jon Stewart that “The dam is broken now that John Edwards is no longer in the contest.” The dam has been broken at Fox for a long time, and here’s a sampling of what has been pouring through:

Note to Hillary: Cancel both debates or SHUT UP!

Bill O’Reilly: Dodge Us At Your Peril

Posted by on February 7, 2008 at 11:28 am. NO Comments :

One of the last acts of the utterly desperate is lashing out with impotent threats. Well, many at Fox News have reached that stage of desperation. They have entered an apoplectic orbit as a result of the embargo that some Democrats have engaged in toward Fox.

Yesterday, Bill O’Reilly called in to Fox & Friends for a brief and ego-laden discussion about who will pay their “respects” to him and to Fox News. He topped off the call with this warning: “If you dodge us, it is at your peril.”

This isn’t the first time O’Reilly has issued threats. Most recently he lashed out at an aide to Barack Obama and defended his hostility by saying:

“No one on this earth is going to block a shot from The O’Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen.”

In October of last year, O’Reilly went ballistic attacking his perceived enemies in the press:

“[T]here is a huge problem in this country and I’m going to attack that problem. I’m going to attack it. These people aren’t getting away with this. I’m going to go right where they live. Every corrupt media person in this country is on notice, right now. I’m coming after you…I’m going to hunt you down […] if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed…I would.”

He is clearly obsessed by his rabid, paranoid, self-absorption. But he is not alone. Fox News chairman Roger Ailes also bashed Democrats for slighting the network:

“The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda. And that’s what’s coming.”

And Chris Wallace sunk to juvenile insults of Democrats because they wouldn’t play with him:

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

There is a clear pattern developing here and, if anything, it affirms the decision to stay as far away from Fox as possible (read Starve The Beast for a detailed dissertation on the shunning of Fox). Hillary Clinton’s recent capitulation to Fox with her agreement to participate in a Fox-sponsored debate is not the sort of retreat that we need when we are plainly winning this war. Obama has yet to release a decision as to whether he will join Clinton’s surrender, but by declining he could leave both Clinton and Fox in the lurch. The decision to deny Fox would be both tactically and principally correct.

We still have to wait to see what Obama’s decision will be, but we know now that Clinton’s move is already working against the interests of Democrats. Chris Wallace appeared on A Daily Show this week and bragged to Jon Stewart about Clinton succumbing to Fox. He also used the occasion to hail it as a victory over the most vociferous of the Fox critics:

“The dam is broken now that John Edwards is no longer in the contest […] We like to say that he was the panderer and the demagogue”

Well, the dam may have sprung leak, but it is far from broken. If Obama holds steady, all Fox will have is an outdated press release. They will certainly persist in their attacks and will likely escalate them, as all wounded animals do. But as they lose more and more credibility, their punches will be like swats from butterfly wings – and only the right wings at that.

Chris Wallace Justifies Fox News Embargo

Posted by on January 4, 2008 at 11:24 am. NO Comments :

Chris Wallace has proven once again why John Edwards (and any other Democrat) is thoroughly justified in declining to appear on Rupert Murdoch’s Foxic airwaves.

In a segment that was only three and a half minutes long (video below), Wallace wasted half of it badgering Edwards’ spokesman, Chris Kofinis, about why Edwards wouldn’t come out and play with Wallace. This already too brief interview, on the day of the Iowa caucus, was halved because Wallace was determined to make a self-serving point that could only have been of interest to Fox News insiders. Wallace asked a total of five questions, three of which concerned Edwards’ non-appearance on the network. Here’s the first question:

“Before we get to the caucuses, let me ask you a question. When is Senator Edwards going to stop boycotting the voters who watch Fox News?”

First of all, let’s be clear about who the voters who watch Fox News really are:

“…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.”

Secondly, despite Wallace’s dishonest phrasing, Edwards is not boycotting viewers at all. He is sending a clear message to Murdoch and Fox that they cannot repeatedly disparage a party, its members, supporters and ideals, and expect to be received with gracious hospitality.

This exchange is proof that a concerted effort by Democrats to embargo Fox News (see Starve the Beast for more) is both warranted and working. It is warranted because, as you can see in this interview, Fox is more interested in its own affairs than in providing fair access to information. It is working because, as is also apparent, Wallace is obsessed with Edwards’ cold shoulder. If the strategy wasn’t hurting Fox, Wallace would not have spent half his time whining about it. He even came back to his lament at the close of the segment saying:

“Chris Kofinis it’s a pleasure talking to you. It would be even more of a pleasure to talk to your boss, but thank you so much.”

Wallace couldn’t let it go, and there is a reason for that. He knows that this strategy could result in delegitimizing Fox News on a broad scale (yeah I know, delegitimizing Fox News is like dehydrating the Sahara). A reputable news agency is not sustainable if half of its subjects refuse to respect its validity. Wallace knows this and that is why he is so fixated on it and fearful of it. Just last month he resorted to insulting the very constituency he is now pretending to covet:

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

If that’s an example of how Wallace intends to cajole Democrats into his lair, he may encounter some resistance. However, it is a good example, along with this interview, of why Fox should be considered off-limits by reasonable Democrats and progressives.