Fox News's Chris Wallace may have misunderstood the point of doing PR when he snapped in front of a crowd of reporters at the Television Critics Association in LA moments ago. Our intrepid Buzz was front and center for the giant meltdown and besides sending texts saying "Rove's wearing a green tie! It's too long!" then she says things rapidly got even uglier. Joined on a panel by Howard Wolfson, John Moody, and Karl Rove, here's how the spin hit the fan:
Let's begin at the end, when the explosion happened. The Fox folks were ready to wrap up, and Wallace said basically, "no. I have something else to say."
Wallace then launched into a stern tirade that he thought there was a huge bias in the questions being asked of Karl Rove — especially regarding the controversy about him not testifying in front of Congress. He raged on why that would have any impact on his ability to work for Fox News, which is an independent news organization. Wallace then asked that he'd be curious to know if a conservative Congress had subpoenaed James Carville, if the reporters would be sitting there asking CNN whether it undermined their credibility to have him as a commentator. The general response from the reporters assembled was says Buzz, "uh, YEAH we would." Wallace fired back essentially, "oh, you would? Well, I'd be very curious to see that." The out-of-context blowup was according to Buzz, about a Richter 8 on the tension scale.
To see more questions and answers, including those leading up to the rant and the response to the NY Times photo-doctoring story, read more.
Does having Karl Rove as a commentator, given the whole testifying debacle, undermine the credibility of Fox News?
John Moody: "Mr. Rove is a certified authority on the electoral process, on politics. His track record speaks for itself. His current difference of opinion with Congress is between him and Congress."
A while later, Rove clarified:
"It is not between me and Congress. I have not asserted any personal privilege. It's between the White House and Congress."
Were those NY Times doctored photos justified?
Chris Wallace: "My feeling is that news organizations ought to run regular pictures of people, not doctored."
John Moody: "Fox and Friends is an entertainment show that does some news. . . . It's certainly there for a big bunch of humor."
And what about the other rival, MSNBC?
Chris Wallace: "MSNBC in its coverage of this campaign went so far over the line in terms of being in the tank to Barack Obama that it lost a lot of credibility. There's a reason why Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity don't anchor election night on Fox."
How does Hillary's former adviser Wolfson feel about being on Fox News?
Wolfson: "I want to be in a position to offer analysis from the left, from a progressive perspective. That's how I've lived my whole life. I'm not going to check my politics at the door."
What about Obama's religion?
Does Karl Rove believe Barack Obama is a Muslim: No. Does he believe there's anything un-American about him? No. But he said he did think Obama made a mistake saying what he said about the lapel pin after Sept. 11. "I think it went one step too far to say that wearing a flag lapel pin is not true patriotism."
Christian Dior
Singh S. Madan
Time to Spa
haha that meltdown sounds hilarious, my favorite part:
"uh, YEAH we would." Wallace fired back essentially, "oh, you would? Well, I'd be very curious to see that."
1Meltdown! Love it!
2Mr. Wallace didn't realize he was a republican lackey until now? He must have a book coming out or something.
3Fox News really is an embarrassment to journalism and to the United States. They're like neighborhood bullies who start whining that everyone's being unfair to them whenever anyone calls them on the crap they pull.
4I really dont understand how people come down on Fox as if MSNBC and others are JUST AS biased in their reporting. If Fox is an embarassment, than MSNBC, the New York Times, and the LA Times are just as much of one.
5oopsy, I meant AREN'T
6The only way to get a truly fair and balanced perspective on the news is to get it from a variety of sources of various biases, I think.
Or just get it all from Citizen
7LOL, I'd love to see a video.
8i agree with cabaker - it's easy to pick on the networks that seem the most outrageous but in reality, something like 98% of all western media is owned by 2 corporations anyway, so just about all networks/media outlets are biased, even if just not as overtly loud, etc as Fox. I agree with Jude about hopping around and getting a variety and then thinking for yourself. Jude, do you read the Guardian (UK)? I find it's the best source of international news (i'm not that interested in domestic british news
) that is also easily accessible.
9I don't get to read the Guardian too much, jadoremondieu (hey, haven't seen you here in a while!) but I do like it when I get the chance.
For online, I quite like the BBC newsfeeds I have at work. In general I also find that a more international approach to news provides a more balanced outlook.
10Well honestly, at least Rupert Murdoch owns up to Fox's bias. I'd rather someone be an honest ahole than a disingenuous nice person.
11I agree with Cabaker. Everyone has their biases, but usually it's varying degrees of pro-corporate propaganda.
12I do think every station has their biases...Fox just seems really heavy handed, IMO. But they are all bias, no doubt...
I wish I could hear the rise and fall of this drama!
13It is kind of funny that the news industry has come to this. Instead of giving us Infotainment, they become the entertainment themselves!
Cab, again we disagree. Fox News holds a political point of view through which it interprets every story. If nothing else, explain why you don't find conservatives who identify Fox News as liberal, while you can find disagreement over MSNBC, CNN and any of the others.
Wallace even suggests that Fox News intentionally holds a certain position by defensively claiming a subpeoned Carville wouldn't spark the same outcry, meaning: You're picking on us for our politics.
14As a viewer, I find their pretense that they aren't strongly biased disingenuous and insulting.
"I think it went one step too far to say that wearing a flag lapel pin is not true patriotism."
I am confused on Rove's statement. So by attaching something to your clothes, you immediately put yourself beyond reproach? Life is that simple? Who knew!
15Well Steph do you find the same from the LA Times and MSNBC? Is it just as insulting coming from them?
"If nothing else, explain why you don't find conservatives who identify Fox News as liberal, while you can find disagreement over MSNBC, CNN and any of the others."
I don't understand what you mean here.
16There are plenty of conservatives who think Fox can be liberal, just watch the last segment of OReilly on a random night, he alwyas reads at least 1 letter from someone who calls him liberal or say he's pandering.
To a certain extent bias is in the eye of the beholder, but there have been numerous studies to show which stations are just as far left as Fox is right.
I could understand saying that biased news is an embarassment, but to point out Fox and none of the others in that statement says to me that its ok to biased as long as its on one's side.
17He must have forgotten his mic was turned on...
18ha! good one!
19I go away for a couple of hours, and see what I miss....
20Yay. I like when stuff gets unscripted. It's so much more interesting.
21Why didn't they just interview Karl Rove? I'd have been pissed too. Drag my @$$ all the way to L.A. so you can ambush one person when I could have stayed home...$#!+.
22Good point Hypno. I also like Rove's comment about the subpoena. The White House is exercising its privilage in this whole matter. It's not Karl Rove.
23You want to get unbiased American news then read it in the international media. However, it is guaranteed to be the opposite of anything Fox News reports. They of course have a conservative bias and the problem people, is that they deny it. They call themselves fair and balanced and they most definitely are not. When the Mark Foley/page scandal broke they reported for the better part of the day that it was the democratic Mark Foley and not the republican Foley who was involved and that maybe the dems hid it to hold onto power. Um, right, how hard would it have been to do a simple fact check? What's worse is that I know people who still continue to believe that Fox News is unbiased. I don't care if you want to get your news from there, just don't call it the truth 100% of the time. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch and he has a definite conservative slant.
24Spend some time reading about American news in foreign papers. You'll start to notice that the "liberal propaganda" the other news outlets report according to Fox News and the conservatives is just the news in truth. Just because you don't agree with it or want to hear it doesn't make it any less true.
And my disdain for Fox News has little to do with the conservative slant. It has almost everything to do with the shotty reporting they do and the hack commentators they hire. Bill O'Reilly and the ilk care little about the truth--they are out to make money and they will do and say whaterver they can to get it.
I read many, many foreign news papers and still believe CNN, MSNBC, the NYTimes, etc. to be liberal. Fox is also conservative. Although, if you actually watch Fox News with any regularity, you will see that they do separate their "commentators" from their anchors. The anchors are, without a doubt, much more impartial than the commentators. I don't think Rove was saying at all that by attaching a flag pin to your lapel, you are beyond reproach. He was saying that attaching a flag pin to your lapel can be a sign of true patriotism.
25I don't know why people continue to think the US media is liberal. Just look at how John McCain is covered by the media. More often than not any controversy with his campaign or any mistakes he makes are glossed over, ignored, or excused. The statements by Phil Gramm would have dogged Obama for weeks. McCain barely had to discuss it. I don't think much of any of the networks, but most at least have liberal and conserative viewpoints.
26The fact that we are even discussing flag pins in this election tells me that people have no idea what patriotism is.
27The difference in how McCain and Obama are treated doesn't boil down to liberal vs. conservative, it boils down to new vs. old. People have their minds made up about McCain for the most part and we know just about everything about the guy other than what brand of toothpaste he prefers, whereas Obama, like it or not, is very very new to the political scene and people are still making up their minds about him, therefore little stories that don't mean much don't haunt McCain because McCain is no mystery and Obama is.
28McCain is no mystery? Saying that off shore drilling is a bad idea in May, and then saying that it is a good idea 2 weeks later in June is mysterious to me! 25% of women who support McCain think he is pro-choice, when he is pro life. I don't think everyone knows McCain yet.
Also, Hypno, I don't see him as being "ambushed". From the way it was reported, it seems Wallace launched into a tirade after things were winding down.
29Sorry Cabaker but people do not know McCain. Also, when there are legitamate issues that arise from his campaign they should be addressed.
30McCain's policies may not be clear to everyone, but I think the point cabaker was trying to make was that McCain's past is not a mystery.
Many people who support Obama think he is pro-life when he is actually pro-choice. I think the abortion issue is just one that hasn't come up much yet this election.
31The Gramm comments were addressed by every major news source.
32People think Obama is pro-life???? I haven't seen any studies that suggest that.
33I have seen quite a few. I will have to find them for you.
34Every where I turn I see people calling Obama the most liberal member of the senate. I have never seen an article or talked to any one that believes Obama is anti-choice.
35There are people who believe Obama is pro-2nd amendment when actually he's done plenty to show the opposite.
And lilkimbo you're right, that was the point I'm trying to make.
But lets look big picture here, what I'm getting from lilblu is that because people don't point out gaffes and policy problems with McCain supposedly, that means the media isn't biased? I mean, come on... I think that never reporting progress in Iraq, never giving any credit to anything good that's been done by Republicans, and not questioning anything anti-American is a pretty effective tool at getting an election to swing to the left. And with all of that indoctrination being done on a daily basis, why bother questioning McCain?
36Can we please not use the term anti-choice? As has been discussed many times on Citizen Sugar, pro-abortion and anti-abortion are the proper, AP-approved terms. Using divisive terms only makes people seem childish and detracts from points people are trying to make.
Grrr...Now I can't find those polls. I'm not saying it's a majority of people, but a significant number, kind of like the 25% with McCain. I remember reading the poll results a few weeks after the Obama/abortion president article surfaced.
37Progress in Iraq? Indoctrination? Foibles? Cabaker what are you talking about? What do you consider anti- American?
I don't want to read or hear about unimportant issues (flag pins). I want real examinations of the candidates policies. If Obama can be questioned about FISA, then McCain can be questioned about his changing positions on the repeal of Roe v. Wade. When a McCain surragate(Fiorina)discusses insurance companies paying for Viagra but not for Birth Control pills; I want the media to discuss the fact that McCain was one of the people who voted against requiring insurance companies to do so. If you want to call one candidate out for (flip flopping), do it for both. The media does not do this.
38Lilkimbo if you or Jillness say there's a report to back your claims, I believe there's a report to back your claim. Anyone else, including me, would have to produce the report, but you two are wicked in your report accuracy!
39Thanks, Steph! I don't think you need reports to back your claims, either! Seriously, though, I really did read a few things back then that stated that some of Obama's supporters thought that he was pro-life. If only I could find it now...
40I responded to your post cabaker but it was flagged. Don't know why. Hopefully it will appear soon.
I was not trying to offend any one by using anti-choice. But to me that's the proper term. I know people who call themselves pro-lifers but support the death penalty. That just rubs me wrong. If life is sacred before birth shouldn't life always be sacred? But I'll refrain from using the term.
41I'm sure the post will pop up soon.
As for the anti-choice thing, I see what you mean about the sanctity of life but conversly, couldn't one say then that someone who believes in abortion therefore doesn't beleive in the sanctity of life and therefore it should never be sacred?
Not instigating, just food for thought.
42Lili, I didn't realize that you disliked the term pro-choice, which I know I used. I will try to refrain from using that on Citizen in the future.
43Opps, I meant pro-life.
44lilkimbo feel free to use pro-life.
45It is obvious that Fox news is not fair and balanced, no matter what any of its viewers think. It's fine that they are a conservative news organization and they should own up to it. The problem that I have with Fox is that they don't let the facts get in the way of their coverage. They are consistently giving false information that benefits the Republicans and attempts to damage the Democrats. Referring to the Obama fist bump as a terrorist fist jab. Referring to Barack Obama's wife as his baby momma. How many times did they call Michelle bitter? Have they done any negative stories about Cindy McCain? Since they were the lead cheerleaders when it was Bill Clinton being unfaithful, did they cover the fact that McCain's relationship with Cindy began when he was married to someone else and that he was notoriously unfaithful even before Cindy? Did they cover Cindy's salacious and criminal past, ie. stealing drugs from a charity? No. Unfortunately, their viewers are getting inaccurate news and running with it. Now go to the other networks, both MSNBC and CNN have run infinite negative stories about Obama and seem to give McCain a free pass on his many mistakes. So, to argue that Fox is as biased as everyone else is not exactly true, but their viewers already have a point of view and they won't let anything like the truth stand in their way. They are basically preaching to the choir and their viewers don't expect to hear anything but what they already believe. And btw, Obama has always written that the 2nd Amendment is an individual's right, he also believes, that the government has the right to control access to guns. No inconsistency no matter how much the right wants to make it so. I suggest that people go back and read what he's written rather than relying on Fox News and conservative organizations to tell you what he stands for. If you don't know where he stands on issues there is plenty of documentary proof to find out.
46cabaker hit the nail on the head with comment #5
47"I really dont understand how people come down on Fox as if MSNBC and others are JUST AS biased in their reporting. If Fox is an embarassment, than MSNBC, the New York Times, and the LA Times are just as much of one."
Once again our media reminds us it's cool when it's liberals but oh so wrong when it's conservatives.
The bias kills me.
"Fox news is an embarrassment to journalism"?
48Give me a break
*eye roll*
Actually in 2004 Obama voted 4 times to allow criminals to sue home owners for injuries they sustain from firearms that the homeowner used to defend themselves against the criminal (ie. breaking and enterting, sexual assualt, etc).
Also, while in Senate he supported a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.
And in 2001, Obama voted against S.B. 604 (IL 2001), which would have allowed individuals who have valid orders of protection against other individuals to carry concealed weapons for their protection.
In 2002 he also voted against a measure that would allow people from outside of Illinois to buy a shotgun and ammunition for the purpose of competing at sactioned competitive shooting events at the event site only. So basically, if you are an olympic athlete whose event is rifle shooting and you're at a competition in Illinois with an identification card saying who you are and essentially acting as a permit, if you want to buy ammo at that event, you cannot do it according to Obama.
He also supported the DC gun ban...
Soooooo... while now he SAYS he supports gun rights, everything he DOES speaks to the opposite.
49Oh and a bit more...
According to the Chicago Tribune - In 2004, Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed.
He also served as director of Joyce Foundation. Since 2000, the Joyce Foundation has provided over $15 Million in funding to radical gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Joyce Foundation is tightly linked to the Soros Open Society Institute -- an extremist group that advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership.
And then there's that pesky questionnaire that was discovered a while back where the question "Do you support state legislation to ... ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" Obama's Response: "Yes."
Remember that? He denied seeing it but people said it was his handwriting.
But hopey, I'm sure you're right. Clearly I'm uninformed.
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.