Chris Wallace

Chris Wallace Begs Michele Bachmann’s Forgiveness

Posted by on June 28, 2011 at 10:31 am. 4 Comments :

On last Sunday’s broadcast of Fox News Sunday, Anchor Chris Wallace listed a few of examples of why many people, including Republicans, consider Michele Bachmann to be a “flake.” Bachmann expressed her dismay at being insulted by Wallace, then left the studio to tell a Fox News reporter that she has the same spirit as serial murderer John Wayne Gacy.

After receiving harsh feedback from Bachmann’s supporters and Fox News disciples, Wallace immediately posted a video apology on the Fox News web site. However, that wasn’t enough because Wallace also had to call Bachmann that evening and personally kneel to kiss her ring.

All of this genuflection on the part of the Fox News anchor toward a favorite character on the network’s political soap opera is rather curious. One has to wonder why Wallace never apologized for calling President Obama and his administration “the biggest bunch of crybabies” he’d ever dealt with. Wallace also never apologized for calling Democrats “damn fools” for not gracing his program with their presence. These were insults that were aimed directly at his adversaries and represented his personal opinion, unlike the Bachmann episode where he was relaying the opinions of others. Yet he never felt compelled to apologize.

Does this represent Wallace’s fairness and balance? Or is it more representative of the point Jon Stewart made after getting Wallace to admit that Fox News “tells the other side of the story.” Wallace has since tried to back away from that comment by claiming he meant to say the “full” story. However, this isn’t the first time Wallace has used that framing to explain the Fox News bias. In July of 2008, Wallace told an interviewer that…

“…whether you like Fox News or don’t like it, it seems to me that it is a healthy development if only because it creates another view point.”

Yep. Fox News has been creating another point of view for years. Creating it from scratch at the behest of the conservative Republican hierarchy. That’s why no affront to liberals or Democrats is deserving of an apology, but when it comes to folks like Bachmann the amends must be made within minutes and repeatedly.

Fox News vs Jon Stewart vs Politifact

Posted by on June 25, 2011 at 1:41 pm. 2 Comments :

Last week The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. The interview included a discussion of Fox’s well known conservative bias and disinformation. While noting that Fox’s Washington chief, Bill Sammon, dictated “marching orders” to the network’s anchors and reporters (a segment that Fox edited out of the television broadcast), Stewart remarked that “the most consistently misinformed? Fox. Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.”

Subsequently, the non-partisan fact-checkers at PolitiFact analyzed Stewart’s comment and concluded that it was false. This set off a flurry of activity in the blogosphere with lefties defending Stewart and righties hailing PolitiFact.

To be sure, there is room for debate on the matter of Stewart’s accuracy. Stewart himself accepted PolitiFact’s findings and apologized. But Media Matters made an excellent case refuting PolitiFact’s analysis and charging that they were making dissimilar comparisons. For instance, PolitiFact cited surveys that measured the civic knowledge of viewers. However, asking whether a viewer knows how many amendments there are to the Constitution is not the same asking whether the viewer believes that the health care bill contains “death panels.” The former is a civics lesson, the latter is misinformation.

One fact that is inarguable is that Fox is responsible for a great deal of misinformation. Politfact’s conclusion was strictly literal, holding Stewart accountable for saying specifically that “every poll” found Fox viewers the most misinformed. That may have been an exaggeration and, had Stewart said simply that many polls placed Fox viewers at or near the bottom of the pack, he would have been correct and PolitiFact would have agreed. On several points PolitiFact noted that…

  • Fox isn’t last on the list, although it’s close.
  • Once again, Fox News as a whole ranked fairly low among regularly used media outlets.
  • Fox clearly did the worst among the major news outlets.

After reporting PolitiFact’s findings, and apologizing, Stewart made a another attempt to illustrate the point he was originally making with Chris Wallace: that Fox misinforms their viewers, and they do so frequently. He used PolitiFact’s own research to make this point by enumerating some of the incidences where PolitiFact ruled against Fox News. It was a hilarious bit that itemized them in a rapid-fire fashion. As a public service I am reprinting them here, following the video, for those who wish to take their time to savor the irony:
  • Glenn Beck: “Less than 10 percent of Obama’s Cabinet appointees have worked in the private sector.” — False (December 2, 2009)
  • Steve Doocy: “White House Political Director once served as right-hand to ACORN chief.” — False (September 30, 2009)
  • Gretchen Carlson: “The Texas State Board of Education may eliminate references to Christmas and the Constitution in textbooks.” — A Pants on Fire! liar award (March 12, 2010)
  • PolitiFact’s 2010 Lie of the Year: “Health care reform is a government take-over of health care.” (December 16, 2010)
  • Glenn Beck: “The Muslim Brotherhood has openly stated they want to declare war on Israel.” — False (February 15, 2011)
  • Karl Rove: “American troops have never been under the formal control of another nation.” — False (March 29, 2011)
  • Brian Kilmeade: “Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s approval ratings are up.” — False (April 15, 2011)
  • Laura Ingraham: “The Massachusetts health care plan is wildly unpopular among state residents.” — False (May 16, 2011)
  • Sarah Palin: “There’s been more debt under Obama than all other presidents combined.” — False (June 1, 2011)
  • PolitiFact’s 2009 Lie of the Year: “Health care bill includes Death Panels” (December 18, 2009)
  • Kimberly Guilfoyle: “Cash for Clunkers will give government complete access to your home computer.” — False (August 3, 2009)
  • Sarah Palin: “Halting Gulf drilling costs $8 billion a day in imports.” — A “Pants on Fire!” liar award (June 3, 2011)
  • Sarah Palin: “Democrats plan largest tax increase in history.” — A “Pants on Fire!” liar award (August 4, 2010)
  • Bill O’Reilly: “Attorney General Eric Holder was involved in the dismissal of criminal charges against the New Black Panthers.” — False (July 23, 2010)
  • Sarah Palin: “Obama voted ‘present’ in the U.S. Senate quite often. ” — False (February 8, 2010)
  • Glenn Beck: “John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in drinking water.” — A “Pants on Fire!” liar award (July 29, 2009)
  • Glenn Beck: “Labor union president Andy Stern is the most frequent visitor at the White House.” — False (December 7, 2009)
  • Glenn Beck: “America is the only country without automatic citizenship upon birth.” — False (June 19, 2009)
  • Bill O’Reilly: “O’Reilly never called Dr. George Tiller a baby killer, only reporting what others called him.” — False (June 5, 2009)
  • Bill O’Reilly: “Only Fox News picked up that Anita Dunn said Mao was one of her favorite philosophers.” — False (October 27, 2009)
  • Bill O’Reilly: “Nobody at Fox News ever said you’re going to jail if you don’t buy health insurance.” — A “Pants on Fire!” liar award (April 27, 2010)

Is that misinformed enough for y’all?

Has Chris Wallace Ever Watched Jon Stewart?

Posted by on June 19, 2011 at 4:11 pm. 29 Comments :

Consider this article the flip side of my November 2010 article titled: Has Jon Stewart Ever Watched Chris Wallace? At that time I criticized Stewart for praising Wallace as a credible journalist despite the evidence to the contrary, which I enumerated in the article.

In this interview of Stewart on Wallace’s Fox News Sunday, Stewart continued to extol Wallace’s credibility even as Wallace demonstrated that he had none. However, Stewart was somewhat more on point distinguishing the rabid partisanship of Fox News from other media. Wallace opened the interview with a relevant and insightful quote by Stewart describing Fox News as…

“…a relentless agenda-driven 24 hour news opinion propaganda delivery system.”

So far so good. Then Wallace asked…

“Are you willing to say the same thing about the mainstream media – about ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times?”

To this Stewart responded with an unequivocal “No.” He later elaborated saying that the bias of much of the media is toward “sensationalism, conflict, and laziness,” rather than liberalism. That was certainly borne out by the recent coverage that fixated on a liberal congressman’s adventures in sexting. Wallace is as oblivious to the mainstream media’s frequent bias against liberals as he is to Stewart’s regular satirizing of them.

When Wallace suggested that Stewart’s comparison of the editing techniques used in a Sarah Palin video and an advertisement for a Herpes medication was political, Stewart pointedly told Wallace, “You’re insane!” But Wallace was utterly incapable of comprehending the difference between the mockery of a person or a practice. It is the same distinction that many people miss with regard to The Daily Show. It is not, in fact, a program of political satire. It is media satire, and to the extent that it addresses politics, it is almost always with respect to how it is covered in the press.

For much of the interview Wallace attempted to portray Stewart as a “political player,” while Stewart maintained that he was, first and foremost, a comedian. In Wallace’s view there is no difference between what Stewart does and what Wallace himself does. I would say that at least one difference is that, while people are laughing with Stewart, they are laughing at Wallace. And when Wallace said that he thinks Stewart is an idealistic, partisan, activist, Stewart responded that “That’s the soup you swim in,” implying that Wallace simply can’t see it differently because of the partisanship that envelops Wallace’s perspective.

So far so good. Then Stewart referenced “ideological regimes” that get “marching orders” and Wallace asked…

“Then how do you explain me? Do you think I get marching orders?”

And here is where Stewart stumbled saying…

“I think that you are here, in some respects, to bring a credibility and an integrity to an organization that might not otherwise have it without your presence.”

Stewart is right, of course, about Fox’s lack of credibility, but he completely missed the fact that Fox is well known for issuing marching orders to their reporters. Former Fox News VP John Moody used to do so in his “Morning Memos,” and current Fox Washington Bureau chief, Bill Sammon, has repeatedly issued directives to cover stories with a specific bias. For example, he told his staff to use the phrase “government-run health care” instead of “Public Option” after establishing that public option tested better among voters. Likewise, he prohibited talk of global warming without disclaimers that there was disagreement about the theory, despite the fact that every legitimate climate scientist agrees that climate change is occurring and it is caused by humans.

Stewart should have been able to counter Wallace’s query on marching orders. Instead he gave Wallace a wholly undeserved compliment. How can Stewart regard Wallace as fair and balanced when Wallace is on record saying that, on the whole, he agrees with Sean Hannity? And where is Wallace’s integrity when he responds to Stewart’s assertion that news consumers are disappointed by saying that…

“I don’t think our viewers are the least bit disappointed with us. I think our viewers think, “Finally!” they are getting somebody who tells the other side of the story.”

That is a brazen admission that Fox’s purpose is to be biased and take sides on the way news stories are told. That quote should be chiseled into the facade of the Fox News headquarters building in New York, and it should settle, once and for all, the argument as to whether Fox News is biased.

But Stewart did get in a final dig that really sums up the role Fox plays in modern media when he noted that Fox has “the most consistently misinformed viewers.” That was a pretty gutsy thing to say to the Fox viewers who will be watching this. [Note: Stewart must have forgotten that his own viewers were rated the most knowledgeable]. Wallace didn’t even bother to rebut the point, instead he showed a vulgar and unrelated clip from a celebrity roast on Comedy Central and implied that Stewart had something to do with it. That was just a cheap shot that landed with a thud. More to the point is the fact that Stewart’s Daily Show is more popular than Fox News. Let Wallace deal with that.

[Update] I just swapped in the video above. This video contains portions of the interview that were cut out of the on-air version. Some notable segments that didn’t make it to air include Stewart asking Wallace if he “think[s] that Fox News is exactly the ideological equivalent of NBC News?” In response, Wallace said that “I think we’re the counterweight. I think they have a liberal agenda, and I think that we tell the other side of the story.” That’s another confession by Wallace that Fox is deliberately biased in a partisan way.

Also cut out was Stewart mentioning Bill Sammon’s emails, and the incident when all three networks cut away from Nancy Pelosi after she said she would be commenting on jobs and Medicare, but not Weiner. I wonder why Fox didn’t want their viewers to hear these segments.

[Update II] Jon Stewart has addressed the concerns of critics (and some commenters here) regarding the PolitiFact assessment of his remarks on Fox’s proclivity for misinformation. He notes that Fox has earned PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year” award for two years running. But that aint all. Here is his informative and hilarious smackdown:

Has Jon Stewart Ever Watched Chris Wallace?

Posted by on November 4, 2010 at 9:53 am. 4 Comments :

On last night’s The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart interviewed Chris Wallace of Fox News. The resulting veneration was cringe-worthy and wholly undeserved.

Stewart repeatedly praised Wallace as the lone representative of journalistic principle on Fox News, calling him their “news guy.”. This makes me wonder if Stewart has actually ever seen Wallace in action. If he had he would be familiar with how Wallace slants his reporting and cushions his interview subjects with praise, softballs, and leading questions, i.e.:

  • Asking the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes “is it unfair to say that this is a president whose heart doesn’t seem to be into winning the war on terror?”
  • Asking Rush Limbaugh what Obama has done TO the country.
  • Awarding ACORN pimp, James O’Keefe, the “Power Player of the Week.”
  • Calling Democrats “damn fools” for declining to appear on Fox News.
  • Admitting that he “generally agrees” with Sean Hannity.
  • Jumping to the defense of George W. Bush after director Ron Howard suggested comparisons to Richard Nixon.
  • Declaring Sarah Palin to be a “new star in the political galaxy.”
  • Asking George Bush if he was “puzzled by all of the concern in this country about protecting [the] rights of people who want to kill us.”
  • In a criticism of Democratic health care plans, making the absurd observation that “people don’t even contemplate end of life until they’re in an irreversible coma.”

To be sure, Stewart got in a couple moments of clarity. For instance, when he noted that Wallace was hesitant to ask challenging questions of fellow Fox Newser Sarah Palin. Stewart was also on target when he congratulated Wallace and Fox News for “taking back control of the House of Representatives,” clearly associating the goals of Fox News with those of the GOP. Wallace assumed the tribute was for besting MSNBC and CNN in the ratings (all Foxies care more about ratings than reporting). However, Stewart properly corrected him. And then there was the exchange wherein Stewart zinged Wallace by saying…

Stewart: You have a very clear narrative.
Wallace: You mean the truth?
Stewart: [Laughing] No. You know which party you want to elect.

But overall this interview affirmed my long-held criticism that interviewing is not Stewart’s strong point. He often seems more focused on fawning over his guests than challenging them. That’s tolerable when he’s interviewing Hugh Grant about his next romantic comedy, but with political guests he should be at least as provocative as he is in the show’s earlier “funny” segments.

Stewart’s Daily Show is still the funniest and most biting satire on TV. But he should never let a guest get away with the sort of spin for which they would be mocked were they to have done it on another program. And the ingratiating tone he took with Wallace, who is as overtly partisan as the rest of the Fox roster, was a failure from both an informative and a humorous perspective.

Hypocrisy Alert: Fox News Sues Democrat For Infringement

Posted by on September 16, 2010 at 2:19 pm. 9 Comments :

In a feat of Olympian hypocrisy, Fox News has filed a lawsuit against Robin Carnahan, the Democratic candidate for senate in Missouri. The network that regularly rails against the excess of litigiousness in American society, is alleging that Carnahan’s ad infringes on their proprietary property.

The ad in question has been temporarily removed from Carnahan’s web site, and YouTube as well, but you can still view it here. The offending content was a clip of Carnahan’s opponent, Roy Blunt, in a 2006 interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Wallace is seen asking whether Blunt is the right man to “clean up the House” given his financial ties to convicted felon Jack Abramoff, and his efforts on behalf of the tobacco industry despite his romantic relationship with a tobacco lobbyist.

In addition to copyright infringement, Fox alleges violation of privacy, misappropriation of Wallace’s likeness and – I kid you not – that the ad is “compromising its apparent objectivity.” This begs the question, apparent to whom? The filing itself (pdf) begins with a paragraph that contradicts Fox’s assertion of objectivity:

“In a smear ad against political rival Roy Blunt, Defendant Robin Carnahan for Senate, Inc. usurped proprietary footage from the Fox News Network to made (sic) it appear – falsely – that FNC and Christopher Wallace, one of the nation’s most respected political journalists, are endorsing Robin Carnahan’s campaign for United States Senate.”

By characterizing the ad as a “smear ad,” Fox may be setting up a lawsuit against itself for compromising its objectivity. Perhaps what Fox is really concerned about is that the ad may instead compromise their reputation for partisanship, as Wallace’s question actually addresses some very real and damaging facts about Blunt, a candidate belonging to Fox’s favored political party (the GOP). In fact, the ad’s representation of Wallace may actually enhance his reputation for objectivity, and therein lies the real dilemma for Wallace and Fox. They are fiercely attached to their biases and can’t abide anyone casting them as even marginally neutral.

Fox’s complaint is unlikely to prevail in court. The doctrine of Fair Use permits the reproduction of segments of copyrighted material, particularly in works of commentary and political expression. Fox News Sunday is an hour long program, but the clip in Carnahan’s ad is a just a few seconds. And it is clearly political in nature, which grants it further protection from the First Amendment.

However, what propels this lawsuit from the merely frivolous to the strikingly hypocritical is that Fox News doesn’t seem to have any problem with candidates who use their precious, copyrighted material in support of Republicans. In that scenario there isn’t any infringement or harm to objectivity. Take for example this ad for Rand Paul, featuring Fox News contributor Sarah Palin:

The ad contains all of the same elements that triggered Fox’s complaints against Carnahan: infringement, misappropriation of likeness, and harm to apparent objectivity. In the Paul ad, Palin is even making her endorsement on Wallace’s Fox News Sunday. So you have a Fox News employee, on a Fox News program endorsing a Republican candidate in a campaign ad, and yet Fox never filed suit against Paul.

If, as the lawsuit claims, Carnahan “intruded upon Wallace’s private self-esteem and dignity; and caused him emotional or mental distress and suffering.” then why isn’t the same true for Paul’s ad? Perhaps the severity of the mental distress and suffering was such that the aggrieved party became incapacitated and was unable to respond.

News Corpse would like to extend its sympathies to the poor and suffering Chris Wallace, Sarah Palin, and Fox News. This must be so hard on them.

Chris Wallace’s Heart Isn’t Really Into Journalism

Posted by on September 5, 2010 at 11:52 am. 3 Comments :

This morning on Fox News Sunday, the lowest rated of all the network Sunday morning news programs, host Chris Wallace once again demonstrated his lack of commitment to fairness and balance when he asked the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes an absurdly framed question about Obama’s speech on the Iraq troop withdrawal last week:

Wallace: In that speech, to say “my central mission is to restore the economy,” is it unfair to say that this is a president whose heart doesn’t seem to be into winning the war on terror, no matter what it costs?
Hayes: No, I don’t think that’s at all unfair

Hayes deftly picked up the cue from Wallace who was obviously presenting Hayes with a gift-wrapped opening to disparage the President. For either of these notorious hacks to suggest that Obama’s attention to this nation’s serious economic difficulties translates into disinterest in battling Al Qaeda is borderline psychotic.

The President’s focus is pretty squarely aligned with that of the American people who are most concerned about the economy and jobs. That doesn’t preclude anyone from being concerned about national security as well. However, most serious analysts recognize that without a stable domestic economy we cannot expect to have much success in achieving our international security goals.

The ridiculous framing of Wallace’s question is not a fluke. He has long been a source of overt bias even as Fox News touts him as an example of their “real” news personalities, distinct from blatherers like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly, Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, and the cast of Fox & Friends. Some of Wallace’s great moments in partisanship include:

  • Asking Rush Limbaugh what Obama has done TO the country.
  • Awarding ACORN pimp, James O’Keefe, the Power Player of the Week.
  • Calling Democrats “damn fools” for declining to appear on Fox News.
  • Admitting that he “generally agrees” with Sean Hannity.
  • Jumping to the defense of George W. Bush after director Ron Howard suggested comparisons to Richard Nixon.
  • Declaring Sarah Palin to be a “new star in the political galaxy.”
  • Asked George Bush if he was “puzzled by all of the concern in this country about protecting [the] rights of people who want to kill us.”
  • In a criticism of Democratic health care plans, making the hilarious observation that “people don’t even contemplate end of life until they’re in an irreversible coma.”

Chris Wallace long ago cemented his reputation as a partisan phony in the field of journalism. He was fortunate to find his home on Fox News because few other news organizations would tolerate his level of unprofessionalism. But I suppose we should appreciate his willingness to serve up new examples of deceit and bias with each of his weekly outings. It makes it just that much easier to dismiss him and to prove that he and Fox News are not actually news and are wholly unworthy of our trust.

Chris Wallace Romances Rush Limbaugh On Fox News Sunday

Posted by on November 1, 2009 at 3:19 pm. 3 Comments :

If there really is a war between the White House and Fox News, Fox has fired the most recent shot. By booking Rush Limbaugh on his Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace has unveiled his undisguised enmity of the Obama administration. After a week of grueling debate on critical issues like health care and Afghanistan, Limbaugh’s appearance had no newsworthy justification. He had only his well worn opinions to offer, and nothing of substance regarding the week’s developments. The only purpose in booking Limbaugh is one that reveals Wallace’s biases and cynical desperation: He needs the ratings for his last place clunker of a news show.

The interview did have some sparks of entertainment. Wallace leads off with a comically prejudiced question:

“This week it will be one year since Barack Obama was elected president. In that time, what has he done for and to the country?”

Wallace asking Limbaugh what Obama has done “to” the country is a milestone in the history of softball questions. It superbly set Limbaugh up to make the startling announcement that he is “really, really worried;” that he has “never seen this kind of radical leadership;” that he believes that “the economy is under siege, is being destroyed;” and that it is “a denial of liberty, an attack on freedom” that “may be on purpose.” Limbaugh went on to describe Obama as immature and inexperienced. And in an unparalleled demonstration of a total lack of self-awareness, he said…

“I think he’s got an out-of-this-world ego. He’s very narcissistic.”

As the country’s collective laughter subsided, Limbaugh continued bashing the President, saying that he doesn’t care about Afghanistan and national security in general, or about soldiers and their families in particular, but that he has seen George W. Bush cry. He accused Obama of plotting “to regulate every aspect of human behavior” via his health care proposal. And when Wallace asked a question sent in by a viewer, the exchange went like this:

Viewer: If President Obama would agree to an interview, what would be your first question?

Limbaugh: Why are you doing this? Why? What in … what … What do you not like about this country that makes you want to inflict this kind of damage on it?

Now there’s a question that will surely stump Obama. That Rush sure is a brilliant inquisitor. It is that sort of superiority that drives Limbaugh’s success. When Wallace asked him about Glenn Beck, Limbaugh agreed that Beck has tapped into a vein of fear and anger. Ya think? But then he sought to take credit for it by asserting that before he came on the scene there was nothing that could be compared to him. He assumed responsibility for…

“…all of this conservative media, conservative talk radio, television, Fox News, the conservative blogosphere.”

It is interesting that Wallace just sat there as Limbaugh declared that he had created Fox News. [Note: Roger Ailes, who actually did create Fox News, had previously produced Limbaugh’s failed attempt to syndicate a TV show] And Wallace also didn’t seem to be bothered by Limbaugh lumping Fox into the vast garbage heap of conservative media.

Which brings us back to the Fox/White House war. If Fox were not deliberately adversarial, then why wouldn’t Wallace object to Limbaugh’s characterization? Why would Wallace have booked Limbaugh in the first place? This can only be viewed as a hostile act aimed at the President and crafted for Fox’s audience of rightist disciples. Who else even wants to hear what Limbaugh has to say? In the interview, Limbaugh delusionally confesses to Wallace that…

“It was a tough thing, Chris, to learn to take as a measure of success being hated, you know, by 20 or 30 percent of the country.”

If he thinks that’s tough, the real numbers should really depress him. In fact, they are the reverse of his rosy citation. Contrary to his unfavorables being between 20 and 30 percent, Gallup has his favorable rating at 28%, Democracy Corps has 21%, and CBS puts him at 19%. If this is war, Limbaugh and Fox are woefully short of ammunition.

Ever since Anita Dunn had spoken up honestly about the war Fox News had started against President Obama, even before his inauguration, there has been a great gnashing of teeth on the part of conventional punditry. Most, though not all, took the pedestrian and self-serving view that the President ought not to take aim at a media outlet. However, it would be folly to permit an enterprise with less credibility than the National Enquirer to persist in outlandish attacks without noting their journalistic deficiencies. The result has been that a public discussion has begun, and it can only be regarded as positive that much of the media has had to confront the question of whether Fox is actually a news organization. And nothing can be more delightful than hearing Fox anchors and reporters raising the issue of their own legitimacy on their own air. Even as they defend themselves, they replant the question in the minds of viewers.

With obviously partisan programs like Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday handing over large chunks of scarce airtime to committed conservative bulldogs like Limbaugh, the question as to the fairness and balance of Fox News becomes ever more evident.

Chris Wallace Fluffs James O’Keefe On Fox News Sunday

Posted by on September 27, 2009 at 8:51 pm. 2 Comments :

For much of the past week, Fox News has been promoting the exclusive appearance of James O’Keefe, the ersatz pimp who produced the ACORN entrapment videos, on their Sunday interview program. The actual segment, it turns out, was not an interview at all, but an overtly favorable puff piece. O’Keefe was heralded as the Fox News Sunday Power Player of the week:

This blatant adoration of O’Keefe had no news content whatsoever. It was pure puffery from start to finish. The only items worthy of note were 1) O’Keefe’s answer to Wallace’s question on whether he broke the law. O’Keefe’s answered “I don’t know what the law is.” 2) Wallace’s search for what drove O’Keefe. Wallace said that what he found was “A special outrage with liberal hypocrisy.” 3) O’Keefe’s admission of intent to do harm in his “reporting” saying that “If you use their rules against them, you can really just tease them and mock them and really destroy them.”

So O’Keefe wants to destroy the liberals and doesn’t seem to care about what laws he breaks to do it. He also doesn’t care about what journalistic ethics he violates. A short examination of the Code of Ethics as enumerated by the Society of Professional Journalists, reveals numerous breaches. These are just a few, with some particularly egregious transgressions highlighted:

  • Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
  • Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
  • Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
  • Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
  • Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
  • Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
  • Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
  • Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
  • Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
  • Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
  • Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
  • Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

With so many infractions of credible behavior, it is interesting that Fox News chose this character to honor as a Power Player. O’Keefe’s avowed prejudices and absence of professionalism would lead most reputable news enterprises to denouncement rather than tribute. But instead, Fox celebrates this journalistic parasite. It is a testament to the lack of credibility of Fox News itself.

Fox News Is Soliciting Donations For ACORN Foe Hannah Giles

Posted by on September 25, 2009 at 11:47 am. 8 Comments :

In yet another example of the interconnectedness of Fox News to blatantly partisan political activities, a “news” link on the Fox Nation website actually goes to a defense fund donation page for ACORN foe, Hannah Giles. You may recall that Giles is the YAFfie who dressed up as a hooker and accompanied her ersatz pimp, James O’Keefe, on a mission to entrap ACORN workers on hidden video.

The defense fund site was set up by the Plano, TX, based Liberty Legal Institute, an organization whose mission statement describes as their purpose…

“To achieve expanded religious freedom and family autonomy through litigation and education designed to limit the government’s power, increase the religious rights of citizens and promote parental rights.”

A defense fund for Giles appears to be outside the mandate of LLI, as it has nothing to do with religious and/or parental rights. Nevertheless, the right-wing organ has assumed responsibility for raising cash on behalf of the pseudo-journalist. The site’s administrator is Roe Ann Estevez, Director of Marketing for the LLI affiliated Free Market Foundation. Despite its name, it is also a faith-based enterprise that seeks to impose religious principles into government affairs.

However, the big problem here is that Fox has partnered with these conservative organizations to provide legal funds and cover to an individual who is an avowed activist for conservative causes, and who is presently being investigated for violations of privacy laws. The link at the Fox Nation will not land you on an article about the defense fund, but on the fund’s donation page. It does not provide information about the legal efforts on behalf of Giles or the groups organizing those efforts. It simply provides you with a solicitation to contribute.

The closeness of this association flies in the face of Fox’s recent attempts to distance themselves from the activities of Giles and O’Keefe. When ACORN announced that they would be suing the pair, along with Fox News, Fox complained that they had nothing to do with the video stunt. They asserted that they were merely broadcasting a story brought to them by a couple of independent reporters with whom they had no affiliation. But by openly promoting a defense fund for Giles, Fox can no longer pretend that there is no relationship between them.

As further evidence of Fox’s complicity with the anti-ACORN punkers, James O’Keefe will be interviewed this Sunday by Chris Wallace. This is another in a long line of appearances on Fox, the only network where the pair will agree to be questioned.

This fundraising project by Fox is an egregiously inappropriate affront to journalistic ethics. What would Bill O’Reilly say if CBS News directly promoted a defense fund for the fired ACORN workers? That is simply not within the purview of a legitimate news organization. And there is the key word: legitimate. Fox News is proving once again that they can make no claim to legitimacy. They are an unabashedly partisan player with an open interest in advancing their own political agenda. Nothing more.

Chris Wallace Contemplates The End Of Life

Posted by on August 26, 2009 at 3:29 pm. 1 Comments :

From the Department of Prize Winning Stupidity…

Chris Wallace of Fox News was interviewing Jim Towey, former director of faith-based initiatives in the Bush administration, about the trumped up “death book” controversy. This is a pamphlet distributed by the Veteran’s Administration that assists people in making end-of-life decisions, like preparing a living will. Wallace has twisted this into another ludicrous myth that accuses the VA of promoting suicide. And then he let’s this whopper loose:

WALLACE: I guess one of the questions I have about it is why would those even be in a document about end of life? Usually people don’t even contemplate end of life until they’re in an irreversible coma.

Yep. That’s when I plan to contemplate end-of-life. The next time I’m in an irreversible coma it’ll be the first thing I do.