Imagine for a moment Tim Russert, George Stephanopoulos, or Bob Schieffer being interviewed on their respective network's morning show, and scolding the co-hosts for excessive George Bush or John McCain bashing.
Wouldn't happen in a million years, right?
Well, Fox News's Chris Wallace was the guest of "Fox & Friends" Friday morning, and before allowing any of the co-hosts to ask him a question, he actually admonished them for spending too much time in the first two hours of the show on Barack Obama's "typical white person" remark (h/t Politico):
Hey listen, I love you guys but I want to take you to task if I may, respectfully, for a moment. I have been watching the show since 6:00 this morning when I got up, and it seems to me that two hours of Obama bashing on this typical white person remark is somewhat excessive and frankly I think you’re somewhat distorting what Obama had to say.
When the co-hosts tried to counter Wallace's views, he replied:
Far be it for me to be a spokesman for the Obama campaign, and I will tell you that they would laugh at that characterization, but you know, the fact is that after giving a speech on race earlier this week, on Tuesday, he gave a major speech on Iraq on Wednesday and a major speech on the economy yesterday. And so, I think they would say that in terms of deflecting attention away from the issues people really want to hear about, maybe it’s the media doing it, not Barack Obama.
Interestingly, a member of Obama's campaign actually thanked Wallace for doing this:
We appreciate Chris Wallace for doing his job as a tough but fair journalist on a network that has been deeply irresponsible over the last week in its unrelenting and sensationalistic coverage of Senator Obama.
Once again, can you imagine a high-ranking member of any television news outlet doing what Wallace did on camera, especially in an election year?
No, I can't either.
*****Update: Bravo, Chris. This is why you're one of the best in this industry, and why your father should be very proud!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
He wants Obama
March 21, 2008 - 17:39 ET by Gat New YorkWallace is doing everything he can to force/entice Obama to come on his show for an interview. He has had the "Obama Watch" to count the days/hours since he promised to come on his show. This may have been done to draw them in and agree for an interview. Once he has him no one should doubt how tough the questioning will be as he does with everyone.
Gat
March 21, 2008 - 17:41 ET by Noel SheppardGat,
Interesting. Think this might have been a set up? ns
Imus
March 21, 2008 - 17:55 ET by Gat New YorkI heard Wallace on Imus yesterday campaigning to get an interview with Obama and he was pretty tough. He cited the fact that Obama had promised him an interview when they were at a gridiron dinner. His Obama Watch is from that day forward.
I did some of the Fox & Friends and it does seem like a set up to soften his stance with Obama by "defending" him.
Fascninating
March 22, 2008 - 07:49 ET by allanfThere is no way a Tim or a George could ever admonish the host. Whether it was set up or not, it is more refreshing the the universal anti-Republican nonsense one sees on the other networks.
Thank you Mr. Wallace. It is
March 21, 2008 - 17:43 ET by docbThank you Mr. Wallace. It is about time someone spoke up for truth in the Media and against the spewed bile by heavy right wingers.
OK, your opinion is clear
March 21, 2008 - 17:52 ET by KarmaOK, your opinion is clear on Chris Wallace and Fox.
Now, what about the opening sentence in Noel's article?
Docb
March 21, 2008 - 18:38 ET by RESTLESS 1Judging by your own lies and distortions, how would you know the difference?
If Obama is going to run
March 21, 2008 - 17:48 ET by FairlightIf Obama is going to run for President of this country then I don't care how many hours FOX does on the candidate. If the other networks did their jobs then FOX wouldn't have to.
Now back to Obama....
Sigh....
March 21, 2008 - 17:59 ET by dronetekI saw it this morning and couldnt believe my ears. I've noticed this kind of thing sneaking its way in to fox a lot lately.
Wallace also agreed with Obama on the "Typical white person" comment at one point. I'm surprised its not part of the article.
Chris Wallace is the best
March 21, 2008 - 17:58 ET by shawn228Chris Wallace is the best interviewer out there. He is equally hard on Republicans and Dems. I loved watching him take the other Fox Commentators to school. The first dude couldn't even get a sentence out because he was so dumbfounded. Your the man Chris.
Shawn & Goldbar
March 21, 2008 - 18:14 ET by MrShyDon't you understand that Fox counter-balances the other extreeeeemely unbalanced left-leaning networks?
The unbelievably embarrassing Spitzer -- Democrat -- fiasco was out of sight/out of mind with the MSM within 48 hours. More than that, they've given Patterson this glorious coronation-style coverage, to further wash away fast the stench of Spitzer.
THEN, Obama is outted with the Reverend Wright and his blatant hate/racist speech -- his own pastor for 20 years! -- and within 24-48 hours, same thing. No more coverage. And then, his speech... and he's now thrown a bouqette of flowers and they wash away HIS stench of being closely associated with -- and not fully denouncing, no less -- his pastor.
But with all that said, I DO commend Chris Wallace on being ballanced, if he feels Fox is overdoing it. AND, more key here, this further debunks the myth that FOX so far right-leaning.
And wrong Golbar, Wallace won't go anywhere... I'll put money down.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
It's called a news cycle.
March 21, 2008 - 18:28 ET by goldbarIt's called a news cycle. If there is nothing new to advance a story within a 24hr period, the story fails to hold people's interest which translates to ratings. After 48hr the Spitzer story was done. This Rev. Wright story is pretty much done. There might be a little here and there but people get tired of hearing the same story over and over and over again where the same details are gone through ad nauseum. There comes a time when you have to say "nothing more to see here, let's move along". I know the rightwing wants to beat the Rev. Wright story and the "typical white person" story like a dead horse. Get over it and move forward.
golbar, You mean like the
March 21, 2008 - 18:42 ET by hydrodynDMgolbar,
You mean like the 30 plus consecutive front page stories the New York Times did on Abu Ghraib?
You mean "get over and it and move forward" like that?
Well, I'd have to say that
March 21, 2008 - 18:50 ET by goldbarWell, I'd have to say that someone being held prisoner by the U.S. Forces, photographed standing blindfolded on a crate with electrodes attached to his genitals is a bit more newsworthy than the flavor of the day Obama story. But you've made my point for me. How often today do you hear about Abu Ghraib? New cycle is over on that one.
goldbar, Really? A half
March 21, 2008 - 19:05 ET by hydrodynDMgoldbar,
Really? A half dozen soldiers out of, what, 130000, act irresponsibly and that merits a "news cycle" of over a month's worth of front page stories? Sure it does.
Your point was that stories have a relatively short news cycle - a few days at most (using your numbers). I doubt that your point was that stories have a news cycle - period. Cause, you know, that would be stating the obvious.
And by the way, can you back up the "electrodes" comment in your post? I don't recall hearing about that.
http://newsbusters.org/node/1
March 21, 2008 - 19:15 ET by goldbarhttp://newsbusters.org/node/12979
goldbar, Um - you've lost
March 21, 2008 - 19:30 ET by hydrodynDMgoldbar,
Um - you've lost me, man.
You linked to a NB post about torture techniques used by al Qaeda.
Was that in response to my asking you to back up your comment about American Soldiers using electrodes to torture prisoners?
Am I looking for a particular comment in that post? Help me out here, dude.
Hydro
March 21, 2008 - 19:25 ET by MrShyThis comparing and equivalency stuff from these people makes me pull my hear out, it's unreal. They just refuse to see what's so glaringly an imbalance of coverage between Dem and Repub stories.
Boggles my mind, really does.
I guess when you love someone, love is blind. And fine, if I'm in love with the right side over the left, then maybe I'm just as blind... I really give up. I'm not here to pound my chest and prove I'm right. To me, this MSM corruption of liberal bias is just clear as day.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
MrShy, I don't really try
March 21, 2008 - 19:39 ET by hydrodynDMMrShy,
I don't really try to convince those who don't see liberal bias in the MSM that it exists. If all of the posts on this site don't do it, nothing will.
It's easier to argue over single statements. Of course, most of our resident dissidents won't admit when they are wrong about those either.
Goldbar
March 21, 2008 - 19:19 ET by MrShyAs Hydro pointed out -- but he's actually not going far enough with how extensive the coverage was -- not only in the NYT was Abu Garib covered for 30 consecutive front page stories, but all outlets pounded away at this, and it remained in the news with varying degrees of prominance for what felt like that whole year (2004?)
Please, Goldbar, please recognize the glaring difference between weeks upon weeks of coverage versus, literally, 24 to 48 hours. Can you or can you not?
Then you make the argument of the visual salaciousness of Abu Garib compared to these new scandals, and how it involved torture, etc.. So now, after your argument that once we understand what happened, the news cycle should run it's course and we move on, you tell us WAIT, but this one is "different", so let's milk it more.
Also, by bringing up Abu Garib, you downplay the very serious nature of a near-Democratic presidential candidate exposing a whole new background -- someone we all should know about before voting him into the most powerful position in the world. You also make Spitzer's scandal into some fluffy thing that's no big deal, when he was the congressman of the largest city/state in the country -- a top-ranking politician, resigning within days.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
As I've said before, if
March 21, 2008 - 19:31 ET by goldbarAs I've said before, if there's no new information that can advance the story, the story will go away.
How can you even compare Abu Ghraib to anything related to Barrack Obama? The Abu Ghaib story broke in small pieces because the story was being suppressed. Little by little photos were released, names were released, and there was much that was held back by the government that we may never know. There were trials and a lot of stuff to keep this story going for a very long time, because there were revelations about it on a weekly basis. If you can't comprehend the differences between these two stories, then you really ought to take a 100 level communications class at your local university.
double post
March 21, 2008 - 19:42 ET by MrShysorry, see below...
Goldbar
March 21, 2008 - 19:41 ET by MrShyFine. So you're saying, 48 hours is enough about Obama? Nothing more to look into, like how closely he shares his pastor-of-20 years's views, how close they are -- and RACE, which has been this countries historic hot-topic for decades! -- it should all run it's course within a day or two? Besides, he is only running to be OUR PRESIDENT.
And then this liberal nugget:
and there was much that was held back by the government that we may never know.
No. If like you said, it ran it's course and the MSM spent months uncovering all it could, then you should put it to rest like you want to with Obama, and not ask "is there more we don't know?" Of course, when it's Republican-related, there is utter distrust and no depths to how deep any scandal/issue is.
Okay, let's have your next diversion argument. I'm all ears, er, eyes.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
MoveOn.org
March 22, 2008 - 02:07 ET by okiehawk44Goldbar: Where do you think Soros got that catchy name from? Yep, Billy Jeff Clinton's perverted antics with a cigar, a young woman and the nation's house.
You and your friends are like the cop at a murder scene saying "move on, nothing to see here, move on."
Goldbar, the American people don't need you or Soros to tell us when to MoveOn.org it -- got it bubba?
gb... That little piece
March 21, 2008 - 19:41 ET by bigtimergb...
That little piece by piece story as you call it was just put out for months and months on television, not even counting the papers here...to hurt us during a time of war...world-wide.
Nothing more.
It was and is despicable.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Look, I don't know what
March 21, 2008 - 19:50 ET by goldbarLook, I don't know what it is with you guys that you can't understand that news story's have a shelf life. Some story's live longer because information is gradually uncovered. If tomorrow there was a picture of Obama at the Million Man March...more life to the story, you're going to here about it longer.
Abu Ghraib isn't Barrack Obama. It's apples and oranges. No, I didn't say it was a little story. The story came out in stages, which is the way most story's break. If you watched real news or read real newspapers you'd realize how the media works. My work here is done.
Abu Ghraib isn't Barrack Obama
March 21, 2008 - 19:58 ET by BlondeWow, dude, that is DEEP. Stupid, but, um....deep.
Your work here is done?
You're work here isn't done, little liberal....I need more laughs tonite.
So keep it up.
I am laughing so hard at the inanity of your posts. And your liberal leaps of illogic.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
gb... Your work here is
March 21, 2008 - 19:58 ET by bigtimergb...
Your work here is done.
Hallelujah!
You can make a nice exit while we all clap!
....and have a nice Easter too...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Blonde & BT
March 21, 2008 - 20:05 ET by MrShyNews stories have a shelf life.
THAT is just too funny. What an argument. And then.... his/her work is done here.
(laughter)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
MSM keeps favorite scandals well past expiration date
March 21, 2008 - 20:13 ET by nkviking75If Goldbar really understood the real news media, he'd understand that the MSM is adept at beating dead horses until they have the consistency of oatmeal, if it serves their purposes. A lot of pseudo scandals last well beyond their expiration dates.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
work done HERE
March 21, 2008 - 20:11 ET by MrShyA follow-up....
If Looking For Mr. Goldbar is done "here", where is he going next?
Goldbar, look, you've got us all curious! Come back, we want to continue to chip away at your fragile hold of your flawed liberal views and beliefs!
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Yeah BT, watch real news
March 21, 2008 - 20:06 ET by MrShyYeah BT, watch real news and read real newspapers, will you? :p Not that.... that... Faux News, and that (Murdoch paper here)!
Abu Ghraib isn't Barrack Obama.
Goldbar, before you go huffing/puffing off, having "had it" with us (or are you just losing steam in this debate?) what we're trying to convey to you here is, Barack Obama is NOT just "Barack Obama". It's NOT "Abu Ghrarib" and then "some guy". He's running for president, and his ideas/beliefs/convictions have come into major question with this pastor. Sure, they are apples and oranges, but you are clearly applying all the weight on an incident that happened in a war, with major breaking news of a presidential candidate.
So you are perfectly fine with this?:
Presidential candidate Obama/racist pastor = 2 days
Abu Garib = several months
Hello???
Oh right, your work is done here.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Hey evenin' MrS...I tell
March 21, 2008 - 20:09 ET by bigtimerHey evenin' MrS...
I tell ya' I was about to go deeper with gb, like you did somewhat...but I know how he is and what he is so I just decided heck with it, I usually try to ignore the trollish guy anyway....besides that he said his work is done here.
I hope he keeps his word..but you know how the leftists are now don't ya...'bout keepin' their word and all?
LOL!...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Hey BT :)
March 21, 2008 - 20:20 ET by MrShyHe/she was getting annoyed because his argument was collapsing, naturally... so, suddenly, his "work was done".
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
MrS... Nothing like
March 21, 2008 - 20:24 ET by bigtimerMrS...
Nothing like tiring out a leftist troll kind of guy....easy work for us...hard on them.
Poor babes...
LMAO...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
goldbar, "If you watched
March 21, 2008 - 20:08 ET by hydrodynDMgoldbar,
"If you watched real news or read real newspapers you'd realize how the media works."
That's pretty funny considering that your "shelf life" argument seems predicated on the notion that media bias has absolutely no affect on how long a news organization decides to run with a story.
Or maybe you think there is absolutely no media bias - in which case... dude. You are really hanging around on the wrong site.
Great, Hydro!!
March 21, 2008 - 20:16 ET by MrShyThere's no expression more superficial, in a sense, than "shelf life" when describing how news is supposed to operate.
I was thinking this exact thing, subconciously when I saw "shelf life", but you brought it to the fore, thank you.
Man, libs are all about appearances and perception, and they lecture us on integrity and "getting to the truth", etc.. Man.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
MrShy, Folks who don't
March 21, 2008 - 20:35 ET by hydrodynDMMrShy,
Folks who don't want to admit that members of the media (like all other humans) exhibit bias in their work try to convince themselves and others of how objective news is by using objective (almost scientific sounding) words like "shelf life".
Next he'll be talking about how stories have their own "momentum", "energy" and "angular velocity". Ok, maybe not that last one.
really goldbar
March 22, 2008 - 02:22 ET by candanceKinda how the Haditha story was such a big deal until those Marines were found innocent, but suddenly such a big "new development" was not important enough to share.
Or how Jesse MacBeth was fawned over - until he admitted to lying - and then the media pushed it under the carpet.
Or how Congress sent a threatening letter to a private citizen in an effort to censor him but that "big development" was ignored by the networks.
Or how terrorists from Palestine kidnap, murder, and torture Israeli soldiers, but such developments don't make the news convienently until after Israel retaliates, giving the impression Israel struck first.
Or how a woman in the crowd at a McCain rally calls Hillary the B word, and that development is everywhere for days...but Obama's pastor saying much worse is "old news."
You mean kinda like that?
Old News? Not Even!
March 21, 2008 - 20:03 ET by CobraManMr. Obama is STILL running for President. Any speech, comment, or
statement he has made in the past, or will make in the near future, is
CURRENT news as those statements reflect upon his character.
One of the ways we judge a prospective President is by their personal
character, both in and out of office. People need to know just what
type of character a potential President has. His statements, both past
and present, can be an indication of that character.
Once Obama drops out of the race for the White House, then, and only
then, will his statements become "old news." Until then, he’s subject
to repeated scrutiny. He better get used to it as that’s just part of
being in the Public Eye.
Shy
March 21, 2008 - 18:34 ET by shawn228I have always liked Chris Wallace. Yes, even after his interview with Bill Clinton. He is equally tuff on people on both sides of the isle. It is kind of obvious with some of the comments so far on this thread that many NBers have the feathers ruffled. They feel almost betrayed, by Wallace and FOX. I totally agree with him on his opinion and I wish some NBers can enjoy some real fair and balanced reporting
As far as how fox counter balances, i'm not sure O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are going to be endorsing Hillary anytime soon
shawn228, I don't know
March 21, 2008 - 18:52 ET by hydrodynDMshawn228,
I don't know about "endorsing Hillary", but O'Reilly did give Obama a pass on his "typical white person" comment.
Shawn I like Chris and Fox
March 21, 2008 - 21:58 ET by well99I disagree with him on this and you apparently.I think it is still a story.The remark stereotyped people.There is a double standard in this country and that needs to cease.That part about it being bred into us.Sounds like a Jimmy the Greek moment.I still respect Chris but totally disagree with him on this.
well
March 21, 2008 - 23:42 ET by shawn228Disagreeing is one thing, implying he is a traitor is another. That seems to be what some are implying
Shawn
March 22, 2008 - 03:23 ET by well99Well to some he might be.That is there opinion.I dont agree with it.Shoot there is times I dont agree with Brit Humes.Once he said Americans dont want to do physical labor.Considering I have done that most of my life with the exception of a few years in the computer industry.I thought he was nuts.Still him and Chris are the ones I trust.I think Goldbar is suffering from lyingouthisass syndrome but he has the right to his opinion however wrong it may be.
Except, except... he was
March 21, 2008 - 19:16 ET by Jack BauerExcept, except... he was oddly uniformed today as he thought that the Wright thing hadn't affected Obama in the polls..
Until it was pointed out to him that Fox's OWN Reuters poll showed McCain beating Obama in a head to head by six points, a swing of 12 points from the last poll.
His response - "Oh, I hadn't heard that." HUH? It was out yesterday.
Good for Chris Wallace for
March 21, 2008 - 17:59 ET by goldbarGood for Chris Wallace for finally telling it like it is. How much of this Obama bashfest can everyone take? It has come to the point of being ridiculous. Lucky for him, he's able to defend himself pretty handily against the mouthbreathers in the media.
Unfortunately for Chris Wallace, he'll be thrown under the bus by his Fox cohorts and will be looking for a new job by next week. Can't have someone telling the truth now, can we?
Uh...Wrong, Chris...
March 21, 2008 - 18:10 ET by aeroveloI have been watching most of the Fox stuff today and they do in fact play the full clip from well before the "typical white person" to well after it.
I admit they are pounding the drum long and loud...but you have to admit it is a very compelling story, however every 5 minutes is probably overkill.
Keep in mind that the MSM would run it just as long and just as frequently if McCain had said typical black person.
Doesnt matter, Obama is toast...its all over but the crying.
---
Ask yourself: Do I want a good paying job, or do I want a government hand out. Its that simple!
goldbar, So if Wallace
March 21, 2008 - 18:46 ET by hydrodynDMgoldbar,
So if Wallace isn't fired or reprimanded in any way, does that mean that the main point of Mr. Sheppard's post is valid?
Why should he be either?
March 21, 2008 - 19:07 ET by goldbarWhy should he be either? For once in his Fox career, he was actually being "fair and balanced".
I think Noel has a valid point, and if McCain had said "typical black person" the news cycle would be about as long. Even the Imus story became tiring after a few days and then it went away. Same as the Limbaugh/McNabb or Jimmy the Greek, etc., etc. When you have cameras and microphones on you 16 hours a day, no matter who you are, you'll get caught saying something you wish you could have worded better.
goldbar, "Why should he
March 21, 2008 - 19:24 ET by hydrodynDMgoldbar,
"Why should he be either?"
Um, because in your post, you wrote:
"Unfortunately for Chris Wallace, he'll be thrown under the bus by his
Fox cohorts and will be looking for a new job by next week. Can't
have someone telling the truth now, can we?"
You say that you think Noel has a valid point, but then you start talking about news cycles which has nothing to do with the central point of Noel's post.
Are you conflating conversations here?
From my viewpoint, Wallace
March 21, 2008 - 19:42 ET by goldbarFrom my viewpoint, Wallace did the right thing. Fox viewers want him destroyed, because he dared to defend a democrat.
If this were a story about a conservative in the hands or Russert or the like, if after two or three days with nothing else coming to light, the story would die. Even the macaca story wasn't around very long.
goldbar, Ok, now I'm
March 21, 2008 - 19:56 ET by hydrodynDMgoldbar,
Ok, now I'm confused. So you do or you don't agree with the main point of Noel's post.
Either you do agree that ABC, NBC or CBS would never tolerate one of their own hosts chastising another about going overboard on a story that made a conservative look bad...
or ...
You don't agree that this would happen because you think ABC, NBC and CBS would never allow a story that makes a conservative look bad to go "overboard".
hydro
March 21, 2008 - 20:02 ET by shawn228Hydo.
I do not mean to get in the middle of your discussion with goldbar, but I think this is pretty much unprecedented. I have never seen something like this on FOX or on the msm channels.
I guess this the equivilent of Matt Lauer critiquing Dateline NBC. I'm not sure if NBC would tolerate it. Still remains to be seen if Fox will tolerate it, Wallace might yet to be disiplined.
shawn228, Don't worry
March 21, 2008 - 20:25 ET by hydrodynDMshawn228,
Don't worry about - apparently, goldbar isn't really big on discussions since they decided to bail when everyone didn't fall all over ourselves in agreement.
You seem to make a valid point. Considering that this isn't something that happens with any real frequency, then, at most, we can only speculate.
However, I could take it a step further. The basic idea here is to ask what happens if a news organization takes a story too far (particularly if it's a story that puts a conservative or a liberal in a bad light). Is a given news organization fair minded or tolerant enough to allow one of their own to criticize the organization's coverage of the story?
Well, most of the folks on this site would argue that there have been a ton of stories put forth by the (liberally biased) MSM (ie everyone other than FOX) that attacked conservatives and that have been taken too far. And as you have pointed out, no one on those organizations has ever stepped forth to criticize it.
FOX, however, is considered by many here as being basically "fair and balanced" so there usually isn't a need for this. However, in this case, one of their own (Wallace) decided to speak up.
Now, if Wallace is disciplined, it would undermine Noel's argument. If he isn't, it would suggest that FOX is more open to criticism from within than the other networks are.
Or something like that ...
You are entitled to your
March 21, 2008 - 21:18 ET by stratmanYou are entitled to your opinion. You are not, however, entitled to misrepresent history for your narrative and get away with it scot-free, at least on NB.
"Macaca" spoken by George Allen at a campaign rally in southwest Virginia on Friday August 11, 2006. One example of the MSM reporting it was this August 14, 2006 Washington Post article. Allen Apologized for his remark on August 14, 2006.
The Nation digs into Allen's past and publishes a photograph and story meant to isolate and incriminate Allen and sway voters from Allen on August 29, 2006. So much for the so-called 48 news cycle. If anything, though, this piece demonstrates that journalists can actually investigate when they care too, though not always like they should be, when partisanship is at stake.
Politico keeps Macaca alive in an article entitled "GOP issues rules to avoid Macaca moments", June 13, 2007.
Mediamatters.org lists 23 distict articles having the word "Macaca" in it beginning August 16, 2006 and ending (so far) on February 28, 2008. Seems the newscycle for Mediamatters is a tad longer than 48 hours.
ABCNews.com has FIVE PAGES of links that reference "Macaca", the latest being March 18, 2008 in an article about technology - Macaca was the writer's way of introducing YouTube into the article.
CBSNews.com has 31 links over 4 pages that reference "Macaca", the latest published on March 17, 2008.
I'll bet you paychecks that similar behaviour occurs with other MSM. If nothing else, the Macaca story lingered much longer than you stated.
Care to amend your statement " Even the macaca story wasn't around very long"?
Interesting that you
March 21, 2008 - 22:31 ET by ckc1227Interesting that you brought up the Greek, Limbaugh, and Imus. Why? Because all three of those guys lost their jobs over what they said. Obama endorses racism and hate for 20 years with his membership in a racist, hate preaching church, yet now he is Lincoln and King rolled into one and deserves to be President, simply because he gave a speech written by someone else.
Outrageous. I know all
March 21, 2008 - 18:06 ET by bigtimerOutrageous.
I know all about Wallace and his countdown for Obama and Obama's promising him he would come on his show some 700 odd days ago I think he said, he is doing the same thing BOR is lately to get Obama on his show...pandering, begging, I don't care what word you use, at the expense of the viewers who are highly offended by what Wallace and BOR are doing, I started watching Fox when they first started, before any of my relatives could get it cable wise across this country yet...I praised Fox on and on...I rarely watch Fox with the exception of three shows anymore...because of exact perfect examples like this one provided here this morning.
To me it is disgusting.
These talking heads say they want thoughtful race dialogue blah blah blah...well lets see....we out here are not the people who were spewing hate-filled racist spiels like Wright did, we are not the ones who sat there listening to this BS for 20 years or so...we are not the ones who would throw our own blood out the window to gain votes, we are not the ones who blame the white man for being afraid to walk in a dangerous part of areas in a city or town because of bad gangs of black, brown or white critters who would just as soon kill you for for five bucks.... we are not the person running for President who we know absolutely zilch about but we are learning Wallace....take your thoughtful dialogue and stick it where the ratings shine...
I have had my fill of all of this BS...I have had it with Fox.
I have had it with the lovefest these talking heads have for this guy, I don't care who it is...the excuses the make for this guy is unbelievable, then to have the audicity to turn this around somehow and make us out here feel guilty about one little thing when it comes to race is far below the belt...far below.
I have a good idea, all of you talking heads go on a vacation in a remote part of the world somewhere, talk amongst yourselves and leave us the hell alone with your out of touch opinions..
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt...check my question in
March 21, 2008 - 18:11 ET by motherbeltbt...check my question in the OT (last comment)...I remember we (I think it was you) were both angry at Wallace...what was it he had said?
I guess Chris (this one, not the other one LOL) has gone lefty enough to please the Obama campaign....I mentioned the Drudge Link to Ban Smith in my OT comment...check it out if you haven't already.
Et tu, Christopher???? :-(
It was me mb... I can't
March 21, 2008 - 18:29 ET by bigtimerIt was me mb...
I can't remember either at the moment...
I saw your comment and got interrupted for a bit here, haven't checked your link, I will in a few minutes..heck I haven't even got to the Newsbusted comedy thing yet....which I always do in the morning if I am here that is...been a weird day for me, one of those everything you touch goes to heck kind of days...from early on...lol.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Sounds to me like Wallace is drinking the Kool Aide
March 21, 2008 - 18:27 ET by DaMavHe's entitled to his opinion, obviously, but he came off like a paid Obama flack. Especially with his gushing over Obama's evasion speech. Maybe Chris Wallace was hoping Obama wouldn't consider him a "typical white". Barf bag time for Chris. I really lost respect for him on this one.
Chris Wallace has a motive
March 21, 2008 - 22:30 ET by tdavisjrI'm not sure if anyone posted it yet; but remember Chris Wallace started The Obama Watch, which was a countdown to him appearing on Fox News Sunday??
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/fox-news-starts.html
Maybe he is trying to earn a few points with the Obama camp so he could land that 1 hour interview on Fox News Sunday like he called for.
Wallace hit the nail on its
March 22, 2008 - 01:53 ET by mostlymoderateIt always comes down to this: blacks can say it, whites et. Al. can't. It's true with so many things.
Disagree with "News Cycle" Comment
March 21, 2008 - 19:09 ET by SmartypantsI disagree wholeheartedly with this "news cycle" comment posted earlier in this string. There is no such thing as a limited news cycle when a conservative has a public transgression. It is debated ad nauseum for literally weeks at times. From the Vice President's hunting accident to Abu Gharib to you name it, conservatives are regularly thrown under the bus by the media. Yet, we hear very little about a former Clinton stooge stealing classified documents in the middle of a public investigation on the very subject of those documents (Sandy Burglar). I've take an informal poll of friends and coworkers and most of them never even heard that story. Amazing.
What Obama said this week was outrageous. Nobody running for president, other than him, would be electable after saying, "...typical <blank> person" about anybody. This would have been a MAJOR news story on all the networks if McCain had said it. If President Bush had said it, the story would not die--ever. In fact, FOX was indeed giving it the attention it should have been given on all networks. Obama displayed clear and unadulterated racism in this statement. Who exactly is a typical white person, Senator? And, if you assume there is a "typical white person," is it safe to assume there is a typical black person too, or a typical Jewish person? This guy is running for president, not for prom king. Give me a break.
Hi Smarty... I could not
March 21, 2008 - 19:27 ET by bigtimerHi Smarty...
I could not agree more with your sentiments.
You summed it up in a nutshell...perfectly.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Obama on Fox
March 21, 2008 - 19:09 ET by mustangsallyI thought it was interesting (and pretty darn shrewd) that Obama finally gave the Chicago media their "Rezko" interview on the day that the Reverend Bigmouth story was breaking. He figured (correctly) the Rezko stuff would get buried and the interview would not be noticed.
With that precedent, I think Fox can expect an interview with Obama during a heavy news cycle; say, the next tsunami - or when hell freezes over ...
I guess that's a typical black man for you ...
You're Kidding, Right?
March 21, 2008 - 19:27 ET by CellaSo Chris Wallace has crossed over to the dark side.
There is no turning back, Chris. You could have fooled me. I thought you had a brain.
Your surprise attack on these cordial affable hosts was disgraceful.
And, no, I am not afraid of people I come upon on the street, in the mall, or at the theatre. It is understood that we all strike a bargain to get along as well as we can.
Wow Cella
March 21, 2008 - 19:31 ET by shawn228Chris Wallace offers a different POV and all of sudden he has crossed over to the dark side? I hardly saw it as a attack on these cordial host either...lol.
Cella
March 21, 2008 - 19:32 ET by BlondeI suspect GAT's comment...first on this thread, is spot-on.
Wallace has the "Obama clock" ticking....Obama refuses to be interviewed on Fox, particularly by Wallace.
So until I hear otherwise, I'm giving Wallace a pass. He is, IMO, one of the best interviewers in the business.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Cella...Exactly.What
March 21, 2008 - 19:36 ET by bigtimerCella...
Exactly.
What he did to them on the air was inexcusable IMHO.
I hope to learn someday in the future knowing what just one of them thought to themselves while he did this to them...I would be steaming inside.
Btw...He could of done that privately in numerous ways too...here they are having him on to promote his Sunday show...and he does this to them?
Talk about throwing some under the bus...you could tell Steve and Gretchen weren't happy...I don't know for sure about Kilmeade because it says in the link above where Obama's site thanks Wallace and Fox ..they had an update to it that said Kilmeade walked off the set mad at his cohorts in the show...or implying this anyway...wished I would of listened to Brian and the Judge this morning....maybe it was mentioned.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Chris Wallace is not a "FOX" hole Friend...
March 21, 2008 - 19:55 ET by CapeCodScottChris Wallace… Not a “Fox”hole Friend
I can’t believe what I saw this morning of F&F. The gang has
Chris Wallace on for a promo of his weekend show and out of the box he dumps
right on all of them for their comments & discussion over what Barack Obama
said on a Philadelphia Radio station where he threw grandma under the bus as a
“Typical White Person”. Just watch, you can see Doocy getting steamed
(When you get Doocy torqued off you’ve done something!” He was justifiably not
Mr. happy this morning!