Chris Wallace

The Figment Of The Center-Right Imagi-Nation

Posted by on May 27, 2009 at 6:03 pm. 1 Comments :

Throughout much of last year’s presidential campaign, and right on through the first weeks of Barack Obama’s administration, the media has persistently peddled the falsehood that America is a center-right nation, politically and socially. Now Media Matters has published a study (full pdf here) that thoroughly debunks this notion, and they do it by using surveys and facts that realistically portray the ideological character of the country – something the media may want to check in to.

The Media Matters study is a comprehensive look at the American electorate. It covers virtually every one of the most debated subjects of public discourse: Size of government; health care; taxes; abortion; gay rights. It also examines the demographics of age, ethnicity, gender, and geography. And every case the evidence shows that America is a progressive, and yes, a center-left nation.

And nowhere is this more misunderstood than in the media:

  • Tom Brokaw (NBC): “This country, even with the election of Barack Obama last night, remains a very centered country, or maybe even center-right in a lot of places.”
  • Jon Meacham (Newsweek): “…insisted that to govern successfully, Obama had to become a center-right leader in order to match America’s ‘instinctively conservative’ streak.”
  • David Broder (Washington Post): “…warned that too many victorious Democrats in Congress had ‘ideas of their own about what should be done in energy, health care and education.'”
  • Karl Rove (Fox News): “Barack Obama understands this is a center-right country.”
  • Chris Wallace (Fox News): “You could make the argument that this is still a center-right country.”
  • Chris Matthews (MSNBC): “I’ve noted that we’re right of center except when we’re in a crisis, when we’re left of center.”
  • Bob Schieffer (CBS): “These Democrats that were elected last night are conservative Democrats.”

I’m not sure exactly why the press is so brain dead in this regard. It’s not as if the record isn’t crystal clear. Obama was portrayed by Republicans, and most of the press, as a liberal extremist – even as a Socialist, or worse. And yet, Obama won a decisive victory. Democrats have also been winning larger majorities in the Congress with each election cycle. And Obama’s approval rating have maintained stratospheric levels. The public supports the President’s policies even when they are told that it may increase their taxes.

At the other end of the scale, Republicans are descending into historical depths of disrepute. Their de facto leaders are universally despised figures like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. Their policies, I’m sure, would be rejected with equal disdain, if they were to articulate any. As it is, they just regurgitate the same old slogans they have been chanting for decades, and those are not particularly well received.

It will be interesting to see what it will take to get the media to recognize what the rest the country already knows. This is a nation that has had its fill of rightist greed and incompetence. We have ousted many of the representatives in public office who led the nation down a path of war and recession. While we can, and did, adjust the make up of our government to more closely reflect our values, it will not be as easy to fix the media. But that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.

Starve The Beast: The Wrath Of The Right

Posted by on March 2, 2009 at 9:45 am. 11 Comments :

We are now a month into the administration of Barack Obama. It’s a month that seems to have been packed with a year’s worth of activity. From the first day in office when Obama issued executive orders permitting more openness with presidential records and Freedom of Information Act requests, to announcements of major policy agendas for an economy on life support and the still soul-sapping wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House has been busy, to say the least.

At the same time, they have had to deal with the opposition of an increasingly obstructionist Republican minority and a media that is overtly hostile. Last year, prior to the election, Fox News was already fortifying its right flank. New multimillion dollar contracts were handed out to Roger Ailes, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. Hannity’s show shed the dead weight of alleged liberal Alan Colmes. Glenn Beck was brought in to shore up the daytime crowd. Neil Cavuto, a bully who is every bit as obnoxious as O’Reilly poisons the economic news, and he is also managing editor of Murdoch’s Fox Business News. And just this week Bill Sammon, author of a shelf full of bitterly partisan books, was promoted to VP and Washington Editor for the network.

The result is a full court press of some of the dirtiest political assaults ever waged by what is advertised as a “news” network. Fox News is shamelessly pushing a campaign to characterize Obama as a Socialist – a committed opponent of America and its values – from 6:00 am with the crew of Fox & Friends, to after midnight with broadcasts and repeats of their primetime neanderthal shoutcasters. They get their marching orders directly from Rupert Murdoch who last September said that…

“[Obama’s] policy is really very, very naive, old fashioned, 1960’s socialist.”

Even worse, these rightist dissidents come very close to openly advocating acts of violence and armed rebellion. Glenn Beck’s ominously titled “War Room” was an hour long descent into fear mongering that posited nothing short of the decline of western civilization. The upshot of this Terror Hour is that America’s days are numbered, so you had better start stockpiling guns, hoarding food and water, converting your dollars to gold, and barricading your secluded compound in the Wyoming wilderness (move over Ted Kaczynski). And, of course, it’s all Obama’s fault.

Another result of this Apocalyptic programming surge is higher ratings for Fox News. The core primetime schedule on Fox has enjoyed a rare uptick in audience growth. For the past three years, Fox, while number one in total audience, has been the slowest growing network in cable news. CNN and MSNBC produced consistently stronger growth. Particularly MSNBC, which was once a struggling also-ran, but which now challenges Fox’s powerhouses and routinely beats CNN. But the numbers for this February are another story.

Total Day: FNC +29%, MSNBC +17%, CNN +2%.
Primetime: FNC +28%, MSNBC +23%, CNN -30%.

What accounts for the turnaround in Fox’s fortunes? Well, first of all, they are benefiting from their previous slack performance. In other words, they were able to record higher comparative rates of growth because their prior year numbers were held down due to some rather unique circumstances. To understand the current numbers, you need to remember what was going on a year ago.

In February of 2008 the Democratic Party was in the middle of a hotly contested presidential primary. Early in the month it was already apparent that McCain would win his Party’s nomination. Consequently, audiences viewing campaign news were disproportionately composed of Democrats. Amongst the biggest draws were the televised debates. Democratic candidates, you may recall, had forsworn Fox News as a host for their debates. So the two Democratic debates held in February 2008 were carried by CNN and MSNBC, and both drew audiences many times greater than their regularly scheduled programming. Democrats also shunned Fox for other TV appearances and interviews. It had gotten so bad that Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, made a veiled threat in December of 2007:

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

We know the problem still existed in March of 2008 because that’s when Wallace debuted his Obama Watch: a clock that would record how long before Obama appeared on Wallace’s show. It was a childish prank on Wallace’s part, but it clearly showed that the Democratic embargo of Fox News was having a real impact. For CNN and MSNBC, who had the guests and the event programming that appealed to the most motivated news consumers, it meant higher ratings. Fox, on the other hand, had depressed numbers because their most loyal audience – Republicans – already had a candidate, so there was no campaign drama to keep them tuned in. Comparing those numbers to February 2009 would, therefore, be favorable to Fox by producing a greater percent difference.

So some of the good news for Fox was really just a matter of perception. But that’s not the whole story. They are actually having a pretty good year, particularly post-inauguration. All the networks have suffered some falloff from January, but Fox has retained more of their recent gains than have their competitors. I can only offer some informed speculation as to why that would be.

First, Fox has more new programming that may be piquing the interests of their viewers. The new programs include a retooled Hannity, minus Colmes, and Glenn Beck’s Acute Paranoia Revue. Beck has found his home at Fox. His ratings have significantly increased over what he had at HLN, and he has also improved the time period he fills on Fox. As for Hannity, dumping Colmes was obviously popular amongst the Foxian pod people. It’s just that much less non-approved, pseudo-liberal noise they have to sit through.

Secondly, by heating up the aggressive tone, Fox has fashioned a hearth around which despondent conservatives can huddle. In 2006 they suffered the loss of both houses of congress. Now they have lost the presidency as well – and to what they view as an unpatriotic, Muslim, elitist, intent on driving the nation to Socialism in a Toyota hybrid. So now they congregate in the warm red glow of the Fox News logo that provides them the comfort that comes from numbing propaganda and the righteous smiting of perceived enemies.

This doubling down on rancor has had mixed results for Fox. While it endeared them to their base, and those they could frighten into submission, it also cost them dearly on a broader financial scale. The stock of Fox News parent, News Corp, is down 70% for the last 52 weeks. To be sure, the economy, particularly for media companies, was difficult, to put it mildly. But News Corp competitors Time Warner, Disney, and even the Washington Post were only down in the 45-55% range. News Corp suffered its worst loss ever of over $6.4 billion. And going forward, they advised Wall Street that income will decline another 30% for fiscal 2009.

In examining the reasons that Fox would perform so much worse than similar enterprises, one would have to consider the possibility that people have become disgusted with the obvious one-sided manipulation and the non-stop, phony news alerts that are Fox’s shock in trade. But I believe that it would also be fair to conclude that the direct actions taken against Fox News by Democrats last year are at least partially responsible for Fox’s inordinately more severe decline. The ratings disparities year over year document the effect that a sustained campaign of snubbery can produce.

Starve The BeastWith the stepped up efforts of Fox to sling ever more buckets of mud, it is more imperative now than ever that Democrats act affirmatively in their best interests. They must resist the siren call of televised glory and begin to discriminate between those who are fair practitioners of journalism and those who seek only to engage in slander and slime. In two previous installments of my Starve The Beast series (part 1 / part 2), I described how complicity with Fox News is not merely a waste of time, but is demonstrably harmful. This is even more true today, as the evidence above illustrates. The message that Democrats and other progressives must take to heart with all deliberateness and determination is: STAY THE HELL OFF OF FOX NEWS! Since it hurts us when we appear and it hurts them when we don’t, the way forward is crystal clear. It makes absolutely no sense to lay down before lions who are determined to devour you.

Now, I don’t want to approach this from a purely negative standpoint. While constructing a united front in opposition to Fox News is an absolute necessity, there are some positive steps that can be taken as well. Other news organizations must be pressured to present a more balanced picture of current events. And, where possible, true liberal voices must gain access to the televised public square. Media Matters long ago documented the imbalance of conservatives and Republicans on the Sunday news programs. That ideological discrepancy has continued apace since Obama’s inauguration. Now it’s time to do something about it. It’s time to make a case for TV to offer a more equitable representation of liberal views – the views of the majority, the winners.

Political activism has always been shaped in part by access to polling. It is an irreplaceable asset for anyone managing a campaign for a candidate or an issue. Similarly, TV survey data is critical in analyzing media performance and prospects. This data is distinct from conventional polling. Remember, networks don’t care about the public. They care about a subset of the public that is attractive to their customers. And their customers are not viewers – they are advertisers. While there are many sources for political data, there are few for media data – and most of those are press releases from vested corporate interests. There is little that we can do with ratings data that has already been massaged to advantage one particular party.

If progressives want to have some influence on programming, they must be able to anchor their arguments with original research and facts. For this reason, it is no longer enough for sites like Media Matters or Talking Points Memo or Daily Kos or News Corpse to merely document right-wing media abuses. If we want to help shape the editorial direction of the Conventional Media, we have to offer authoritative presentations to map a path to bigger audiences and ratings victories. We need to speak to the needs of the news providers and give them a business case for adopting a truly balanced programming model. To do this we need access to the raw data that is at the heart of television marketing.

So who amongst the lefty netroots will step forward and subscribe to Nielsen Media Research broadcast and cable data? I’m going to rule out News Corpse because I can’t afford it. But I do have 14 years of experience in media research and would be willing to help produce analyses and presentations. Just as progressive authors and bloggers offer informed advice to advance political goals, we need to be able to make a persuasive, market-based case for the sort of programming reform that we want to see. We need to be able to show the networks that it is in their interest, financially and ethically, to develop programming that is honest and in keeping with the principles of an engaged and probing press. We need to be able to counter the false impressions relentlessly pushed by faux news enterprises that tout themselves as the popular voice of the nation. It seems that a day does not go by that Bill O’Reilly doesn’t boast about his ratings. The funny thing is that he also condemns the source of those ratings with the delusional paranoia that only he can muster:

“The bottom line on this is there may be some big-time cheating going on in the ratings system, and we hope the feds will investigate. Any fraud in the television rating system affects all Americans.”

So O’Reilly thinks that the system he so proudly cites for affirmation of his massive popularity, is also engaging in big-time cheating for the benefit of his foes. If he’s right, and Nielsen data is not to be trusted when they report that his competition is catching up, than why should we trust it when it reports his success. In truth, the only cheating going on is on the part of the self-promoting networks and the egomaniacal personalities they employ. It is their selective and misleading interpretations that are distorting the reality of viewer behavior.

Suffice it to say that we would be in a much better position to dispute the spin that’s being peddled if we had access to unfiltered Nielsen data. We could mine that data to develop solutions and strategies to present to news programmers. Then we may begin to have some influence over news programming, personalities, and content.

This is as important an endeavor for progressives as the strategies we promote for politicians. I would argue that it’s more important. Especially in a media environment where prominent news enterprises are openly fomenting a near-militaristic antagonism to our representatives and our values.

The New Face Of The Republican Party

Posted by on February 4, 2009 at 2:03 pm. 1 Comments :

It is now all of two weeks into the administration of Barack Obama, and already the media is heralding the end of the honeymoon. Considering that on the day of the inauguration, Chris Wallace of Fox News suggested that Obama wasn’t actually president at all because of the mis-articulation of Chief Justice Roberts during the oath, I’m not certain that the honeymoon didn’t end before it ever began.

The failure of the Obama presidency should be welcome news to some of his critics. Rush Limbaugh confessed to hoping for such an outcome. That admission created something of a stir, but the result seems to be that Limbaugh has emerged as the new leader of the Republican Party. He has taken his place at the top of the Party’s hierarchy and even allows members of Congress an audience wherein they can profess their allegiance and kiss his ass ring.

Obama recently told a gathering of Congress critters that “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Obama was criticized by some Democrats because these remarks just serve to elevate Limbaugh by taking him on. I agree with that analysis, but not that it deserves criticism. It can only help Democrats to elevate Limbaugh and make him the logo of the Republican brand.

The rest of the field isn’t much better than Limbaugh. Sarah Palin still pokes her perky head up every few days to keep her name in the news. And Joe the Plumber … er … journalist … er … political strategist just seems to keep finding new ways to embarrass himself and the Party he has come to represent.

GOP alums aren’t helping either. George Bush has moved into Dick Cheney’s secret, undisclosed location and has not been seen or heard since just after Obama’s inauguration (on second thought, maybe that’s how he’s helping). Cheney, on the other hand, has emerged from his lair wearing a sandwich board that says “REPENT! The end is NEAR!”

And, as always, Fox News remains the Public Relations arm of the Republican Party. Glenn Beck has arrived and is settling in comfortably with daily derision directed at Obama and his still forming team. Bill O’Reilly has declared war on the New York Times, presumably because he can’t keep waging his war on Christmas in February – and he must have a war raging at all times. And Chris Wallace, given a brief ten minutes with the President, uses part of it to ask if he is too thin-skinned because he told a joke about Fox News. Obama responded by stating the obvious:

“I think it’s fair to say that I don’t always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but that’s part of how a democracy is supposed to work. We’re not all supposed to be in lock step here.”

The rightist echo chamber has already seized on these remarks asserting that Obama has insinuated that all of the media, other than Fox News, are in lock-step with the White House. Of course that is not what he said at all, and just watching the various news networks would reveal how shallow that analysis is. What is inescapable is the fact that Fox alone has a lock-step ideology. Despite false claims of liberal bias, other networks have much more diverse programming and personalities. CNN has Lou Dobbs, MSNBC has Joe Scarborough.

Only Fox has a 100% ideologically pure schedule. And it is Fox that is home to the Limbaughs, Palins, Wurzlebachers, Becks, Hannitys, O’Reillys, etc., who, due to the absence of real political leadership, are the new faces of the Republican Party.

Chris Wallace Agrees With Sean Hannity

Posted by on January 27, 2009 at 12:28 pm. 2 Comments :

Just for the record, it needs to be noted who Chris Wallace, the host of Fox News Sunday, and contributor to Fox News, turns to for political advice and analysis. This exchange took place in an interview with Improper Bostonian (pdf) magazine:

Improper Bostonian: Can you truly say that you’re proud to work alongside Sean Hannity?

Chris Wallace: I respect him. We do different things, and he’s very valuable to the network. I generally agree with him, even if I don’t always agree with his approach.

Wallace is fond of asserting that there is a difference between the opinionated Fox News programs hosted by Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, et al, but now the truth comes out. It’s hard to maintain that you have a substantive difference with someone with whom you “generally agree.”

Changing Channels: Fox News In the Age Of Obama

Posted by on January 20, 2009 at 4:24 pm. 3 Comments :

In 1996 Rupert Murdoch hired Roger Ailes, a Republican media consultant, to build a new 24 hour cable news network. Fox News immediately went to work to disparage Democrats and liberals. They spent their early years mired in debt, losing $80-90 million annually. It was only Murdoch’s deep pockets that kept them out of bankruptcy. Still, they had some strategic success as they badgered Bill Clinton with Whitewater and Lewinsky, and they corralled Republican and evangelical voters so that George Bush and Karl Rove could reach them more easily.

However, it was during the Bush years that Fox News began to outperform the cable competition. CNN, HLN, and the launch of MSNBC diluted the non-rightist audience giving Fox a plurality of viewers and bragging rights for ratings victories. Fox enjoyed first shots at interviews and scoops from the administration and Congressional Republicans. That brought them greater influence and gratitude from the halls of power. In addition, the White House kept its TVs tuned to Fox, as well as those at Camp David, the Crawford ranch, and even on Air Force One. Vice-President Dick Cheney even had a travel directive that required that “all televisions [be] tuned to Fox News.” Woe to those staffers who failed in that duty.

There may never have been (and hopefully never again will be) such a close relationship between a news organization and a presidential administration. In the end, they were even trading places as if they were merely different departments of the same enterprise: When presidential advisor Karl Rove moved out of the White House to become a Fox News contributor, Fox anchor Tony Snow moved in to become Bush’s press secretary.

Going forward, Fox will find themselves on a new frontier. It is highly improbable that they will be the exclusive broadcaster in the White House of Barack Obama. Although, I certainly hope that the new administration will pay close attention to the spew emanating from Fox, I don’t expect them to be in cahoots. Murdoch and company are definitely going to lose some of their clout. There will be a new Chairman at the FCC, and a new position for a White House Technology advisor. These will be knowledgeable and independent people who will serve the public interest – for a change. Here is a sampling of the views of Fox News, and Big Media in general, from some senior members of the new administration:

President Obama: “In recent years, we have witnessed unprecedented consolidation in our traditional media outlets. Large mergers and corporate deals have reduced the number of voices and viewpoints in the media marketplace.”

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State Designate: “There have been a lot of media consolidations in the last several years, and it is quite troubling. The fact is, most people still get their news from television, from radio, even from newspapers. If they’re all owned by a very small group of people – and particularly if they all have a very similar point of view – it really stifles free speech.”

Eric Holder, Attorney General Designate: “With the mainstream media somewhat cowered by conservative critics, and the conservative media disseminating the news in anything but a fair and balanced manner, and you know what I mean there, the means to reach the greatest number of people is not easily accessible.”

More President Obama: “I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls. If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right? Because the way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?”

This can’t be good news for Fox News. But the network seems to be aware of the shifting landscape and has been preparing for battle. They signed new long-term contracts with Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity. They axed Hannity’s foil, Alan Colmes. They hired reinforcements like Mike Huckabee, Glenn Beck, and Judith Miller. Clearly they see trouble ahead and are responding by stocking their armory with ever more weapons of mass deception.

Unfortunately for Fox, forecasts are not rosy for the disinformation station. They are consistently the slowest growing cable news network, particularly in the all-important 25-54 demographic. They have the oldest skewing cable news audience. They are facing stiffer competition than ever, with the surging Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow’s record-breaking debut. The Fox News ratings crown was once unassailable. Today, while still maintaining their first place average, they often come in second and occasionally third. That was unthinkable two short years ago.

As for their future prospects, it is difficult to make a case for Fox to be optimistic. In addition to their recent ratings woes, they are entering a period wherein the American public may not appreciate a network that is hostile to a new president who is held in high regard. Obama is beginning his term with an 80% approval rating. Of course, that won’t last, and Fox will surely seek to shorten Obama’s honeymoon. But contrary to some media analysts who suggest that an adversarial relationship with Washington will benefit Fox, the truth is that Fox experienced its strongest growth amidst the friendliness of Bush years. This suggests that it is not simply drama and controversy that propelled Fox (although that is their preferred programming model), but that having powerful political allies helped them to succeed. When looked at objectively, that shouldn’t surprise anyone. When has having powerful political allies ever been a disadvantage?

Nevertheless, Fox is pursuing the path of most hostility, as evidenced by their new schedule. For further evidence note the response by Fox News commentators following Obama’s inaugural speech. Brit Hume’s first comments were to find passages that might please the right. Chris Wallace actually speculated that the flubbed oath of office (due to Chief Justice Roberts mangling the text) might mean that Obama isn’t really president (Let the conspiracy emails begin). Glenn Beck spent the whole hour of his second show on Fox heaping scorn on Obama. And while Rush Limbaugh isn’t technically on Fox, he is a charter member of the same ideological fraternity, and he has published a long dissertation on why he hopes Obama fails. These guys aren’t wasting any time.

This is just a preview of what we have to look forward to. The influence of Fox News is bound to decline. The Obama camp would be justified in giving Fox a cold shoulder. Fox deserves it for their brazen partisanship and for failing the test of responsible journalism. Other networks should now get some exclusives and scoops. And the more that this historic administration ignores Fox, the less relevant they will be.

We will now see Fox revert to the behavior of an injured wild beast that becomes even more ornery and more dangerous. We see it already. It’s important that we keep an eye on this threat, as it is not retreating to its lair. But it is retreating in the hearts and minds of the American people, and for that we should feel some sense of relief.

Chris Wallace Defends His Hero George Bush

Posted by on December 3, 2008 at 12:58 pm. 4 Comments :

At a Washington screening of Ron Howard’s new movie, Frost/Nixon, Howard slipped into a bit of uncharacteristic politicking. The Washington Times reports that…

Mr. Howard was the first to comment about the film’s connection to Mr. Bush, saying that he had told friends in 1977 that an abuse of power similar to Mr. Nixon’s would “never happen again.”

“So that led to some frustrations that I’ve experienced over the last few years,” said Mr. Howard, an Oscar-winning director.

That blistering and treasonous assault on America’s reluctant hero, George Bush, could not go unchallenged. And thankfully, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace was on the scene to protect the honor of the Decider. Wallace, in the tradition of fairness and balance for which his kind is known, leaped into action from his perch in the audience to save the day:

“Richard Nixon’s crimes were committed purely in the interest of his own political gain. I think to compare what Nixon did, and the abuses of power for pure political self-preservation, to George W. Bush trying to protect this country — even if you disagree with rendition or waterboarding — it seems to me is both a gross misreading of history both then and now.”

Wallace may want to reconsider raising the question of how Bush compares to Nixon. After all, both were presidents who brazenly broke the law. Both believed in their own political supremacy. Both waged illegal wars against third world countries that never presented a threat to the U.S. Both packed government agencies with loyal but unqualified cronies. Both abused their offices for partisan purposes. Both obstructed investigations, invoked executive privilege, and ignored subpoenas. Both worked to advance the interests of corporations and the wealthy at the expense of workers and the middle class. And both oversaw a parade of underlings and associates marching from the White House to the Big House.

I could go on, but I think I should pause to illuminate an important difference. Nixon was not an imbecile who considered himself ordained by God to lead the world.

But Wallace’s key premise was also wrong. Bush’s crimes were as motivated by self-interest as anything Nixon did. The assertion that Bush was acting only to protect the country is nonsense. Invading a nation that posed no threat is not protecting the country. Neither is sanctioning torture; or revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative as political payback; or firing U.S. attorneys for partisan reasons; or allowing thousands to drown in New Orleans while praising the former horse pageant lawyer you installed to head FEMA; or presiding over an era of deregulation that sent our economy into a tailspin.

If anyone is misreading history it is Wallace. For him to go out of his way to recast Bush as a hero is above and beyond the call of even a Fox News toady. It also should obliterate any facade of impartiality Wallace hopes to maintain. Not that he hadn’t already brought that curtain down.

Could Fox’s Chris Wallace Be More Out Of Touch?

Posted by on November 2, 2008 at 4:02 pm. NO Comments :

Today on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed Barack Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe. Most of the segment was standard political talk show fare, but what happened at the end was rather startling:

WALLACE: Well, and that brings us to the second question I wanted to ask you. In fact, you do have a very big event coming and that is not the election. It’s the birth of your second child.

In fact, that’s the reason you’re in Washington. Your wife, as I understand it, was due yesterday. What do you do if you’re in Chicago on election morning and you get the word your wife’s in labor?

PLOUFFE: I will get back as quickly as I can and head to the hospital. First things first, and we’re obviously so excited about that. We’re hoping that our new one will wait till after Tuesday, but either way we’ll be thrilled.

WALLACE: But you’re saying that if election morning you find out that the new one’s coming and isn’t waiting for the election, you’re going to leave Chicago and head off to the hospital?

PLOUFFE: Absolutely.

WALLACE: Boy, there are – a lot of people in the Beltway are going to question your priorities, David.

Why was Wallace so surprised that Plouffe would rush to his wife’s side if their child was about to be born? Wallace was so incredulous he had to ask the question twice, and he was still dissatisfied with the answer. Could Wallace be correct that people in the Beltway would question Plouffe’s priorities? Does he really think that Plouffe should be more concerned with attending a political party – even if it’s a victory party – than with the welfare of his wife and new baby?

Is this a demonstration of Republican family values?

The Sarah Palin Watch Widget

Posted by on September 6, 2008 at 2:38 am. 17 Comments :

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin burst on the scene from nowhere – Nowhere, Alaska, that is. You know, the place where they wanted to build that bridge to. And despite the fact that nobody in at least 49 states knew the slightest bit about her, she rocketed to stardom as the leading light of American conservatism.

Consequently, some Americans wanted to know more about the person who may become a 72 year old heartbeat from the presidency of the United States. They will be disappointed. The McCain campaign has sequestered Palin and will not permit reporters to interview her. They will allow no questions on the vetting process, or the abuse of power investigation that is currently underway. They refuse to clarify her positions on foreign policy or Congressional earmarking. There will be no direct examination of her record as governor or her fitness for national office. In short, the American people should shut up and be happy with whatever happy talk the campaign wishes to engage in via staged rallies and campaign ads. That is almost exactly what McCain spokesperson Nicolle Wallace told Jay Carney of Time Magazine.

I created the Palin Watch widget to record the elapsed time from her entry into the race, until she agrees to answer questions in a fair, independent, national media forum. There is simply no other way to assess her ability to perform the job she seeks. A candid give and take with probing journalists reveals more of a candidates knowledge and insight than a speech that was probably prepared by aides. The job she wants is far too important to give to an unknown quantity who arrogantly declines to open herself up to the people she would serve.

The Palin Watch was inspired in part by the Obama Watch, a device that Chris Wallace used to goad Barack Obama into appearing on his Fox News Sunday program. The difference is that I am not pimping my own show, or any show, so long as Palin makes herself available to press scrutiny.

Americans must rise up and demand that McCain free Sarah Palin. The time is now to come clean so that voters have sufficient information to make an informed judgment. Democracy is in a sorry state if political strategists can hawk candidates like soda pop without ever disclosing the ingredients.

McCain And Palin: Stars In Their Eyes

Posted by on September 4, 2008 at 4:03 pm. 5 Comments :

For months now, John McCain has been belittling Barack Obama as inexperienced and unprepared to be president. Much of the criticism has targeted his speech making prowess and charisma, which McCain characterizes as the hollow trappings of celebrity. There was even an ad that attacked Obama as the “biggest celebrity in the world,” and juxtaposed his image with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. McCain himself said that:

“The bottom line is that Sen. Obama’s words, for all their eloquence and passion, don’t mean all that much.”

But now, the day after Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the “pit bull in lipstick,” debuted at the Republican National Convention, the campaign, the Party, and the media have all adopted a new view of celebrity. While it was a pejorative when directed Obama, for Palin it elicits the sort of applause and acclaim that is ordinarily reserved for … well, celebrities. Consider this sampling of the press:

Chris Wallace – Fox News: “I don’t think it’s overstating it to say being right here on the floor that a star was born tonight. A new star in the political galaxy.”
Michael Barone – U.S. News & World Report: “Sarah Palin’s speech to the Republican National Convention last night was a home run. A star was born.”
Margaret Carlson – Bloomberg: “On Wednesday night, a political star was born.”
William Kristol – New York Times: “A star is born.”
Karen Breslau – Newsweek: “A populist star is born.”
Art Moore – WorldNetDaily: “A star is born. The country ‘fell in love with Sarah Palin tonight.'”
Rich Lowry – National Review: “After that, you feel like asking not: How did she rise so fast? but Where has she been so long?”

And that’s not all. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper, MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, and Fox News’ Brit Hume and Dick Morris, all used some variation of the “Star is Born” theme to describe Palin’s debut. And all it took was one speech for the GOP establishment, and the media at large, to succumb to the charms of a heretofore unknown political neophyte who, two years ago, was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 6,000. One speech to transform the perception of this newcomer into someone qualified to be a 72 year old heartbeat from the presidency. Just one extensively rehearsed, meticulously stage-crafted speech.

So now Republicans, who demeaned Obama for attracting positive attention and adoring fans, is boasting that they have their own idol at whom to stare glassy-eyed. Now the media is abuzz with glowing notices for Palin’s opening night. And yet the McCain/Palin camp is still bashing the press as biased, despite the unfiltered adulation that is being blasted at them from all sides. The press is being castigated for doing what any professional journalist would acknowledge is their job. Politico’s Roger Simon is one of the very few who see the irony in this. He penned a must-read column that sarcastically explains “Why the media should apologize.”

“We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? […] Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.”

In her address last night, Palin spoke of “dramatic speeches before devoted followers” and wondered what happens “when the cloud of rhetoric has passed… when the roar of the crowd fades away.” But no one in the press observed that she might as well have been talking about herself, even more than Obama. After all, Obama has been on the campaign trail for 19 months developing the devotion of his supporters, but Palin has achieved the task after a grand total of four days and one speech. Four days during which she has been sequestered from the public by the campaign which has not offered her up for a single press conference. Despite the many controversies swirling around her appointment, she has so far only sat for an interview with the hard-hitting People Magazine. There is talk that she will appear on a Sunday morning news program this weekend. Guess which one. Fox News Sunday!

The result of all of this is that the two arguments McCain has used most aggressively against Obama – his experience and his celebrity – have both been rendered inert. Palin has less experience and, contrary to Obama’s multitude of stirring public addresses, Palin still has – and, I repeat – just one speech. The fanatical fawning of faithful Republicans is bad enough, but not unexpected. From the media, however, it is just plain creepy. Is anyone paying attention?

Chris Wallace OD’s On Fox News Kool Aid

Posted by on July 3, 2008 at 10:18 am. 1 Comments :

In an interview with the Martha’s Vineyard Times, Chris Wallace reveals that his re-education program has been successfully completed. Having been fully immersed in the Fox News program for attitude adjustment, Wallace has emerged a changed man. It took four and a half years but now he finally realizes that all the time he spent at what he calls the “mainstream media” was nothing but a delusional fantasy:

“…when I was in the mainstream media, when I was working at NBC and ABC – those were my big jobs for about 25 years – I thought we were fair and balanced. But since coming to Fox four and a half years ago, I have come to see things a little differently. And I, in fact, do believe there is a bias in the mainstream media and that is something I was only able to understand when I was outside of it.”

Wallace’s acknowledgment of media bias is a major breakthrough. And his repeated, mantra-like, references to mainstream media reflect the fullness of his indoctrination. He never bothers to explain how Fox, the number one cable news network and part of the vast Murdoch family of international TV, newspapers, and magazines, is not itself mainstream. But he does explain why Fox is an important player in modern media:

“…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.”

As we all know, it is essential that new viewpoints be “created” if we are to effectively manipulate public opinion. Even if that creation is the product of fiction writers at Fox headquarters. However, by conceding that Fox propounds a manufactured position, Wallace comes dangerously close to exposing the heart of the rightist conspiracy. He may need a little more Kool Aid after all.