Is Chris Wallace Fair and Balanced?
Terry Trippany on Sep 25 2006 at 3:51 pm | Filed under: Feature Article, Liberalism Watch, Media Watch
Oh man. I have been inundated from angry responses to my article on the Chris Wallace - Bill Clinton interview.
One common theme emerging is that Chris Wallace isn’t fair and balanced. This sort of criticism is meant to impugn and diminish the credibility of Mr. Wallace and that of the Fox News as shills of the right wing neocon engine. In this case that criticism is unfounded.
I didn’t have to go very far back to find examples of the contrary as someone threw the September 10th Wallace - Condoleezza Rice interview in my face as an example of bias. So I went over and read the interview transcript to confirm what I already knew. There isn’t much to this claim. Wallace was equally hard on Rice if not harder as demonstrated below.
September 10, 2006 Chris Wallace Interview w/ Condoleeza Rice
Q. Let’s start with the big picture. Five years later, where do we stand in the war on terror? Where do we stand in the conflict against Islamic extremism?
Q. Any failures?
Q. But anything specifically that you say — that you know, five years later the war on terror hasn’t gone as well?
Q. All right, let’s talk about some of the concerns that people have. President Bush calls Iraq and again this week called Iraq a central front in the war on terror. But I want to look at some of the other statements made by your Administration recently, and let’s take a look. In April, your State Department said al-Qaida in Iraq has about 1,000 fighters. That’s about 5 percent of the total insurgency. Last month, the Pentagon said the core conflict in Iraq changed into a struggle between Sunni and Shia extremists seeking to control key areas of Baghdad.
Q. But I think here’s the concern a lot of people have. When we went in there allegedly to remove the weapons of mass destruction, people understood that as the war on terror. Even when we deposed Saddam Hussein, people understood that as the war on terror. When we were fighting Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, people understood that as the war on terror. Now we’ve got Shiites fighting Sunnis, Muqtada al-Sadr. These are rivalries that go back centuries, tribal rivalries, religious rivalries. Aren’t we involved in a terrible case of mission creep here that has nothing to do with the war on terror?
Q. Meanwhile there is Afghanistan, which used to be the safe haven for al-Qaida and where some of its leaders are still at large. On Friday, a suicide bomber — and we have the pictures here — attacked an American military convoy in Kabul, killing 16 people. The Taliban, which most Americans thought we wiped out back in 2001, is back on the march in the south and NATO forces this week are asking for more troops.
Secretary Rice, why didn’t we finish the job in Afghanistan?
Q. But again, and just this week the head British commander in Afghanistan, Brigadier Ed Butler said — and let’s put it up on the screen: “The fighting is extraordinarily intense, the intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis.” I’m sure a lot of Americans are saying, “Isn’t it a failure?” We had them on the run, we had the Taliban completely disrupted. Isn’t it a failure to have allowed the Taliban to regroup?
All emphasis is mine and is meant to demonstrate just how hard Wallace was on Secretary Rice. If anything I believe that Chris Wallace looks better in the face of this criticism. The examples of claims to the contrary invalidate Bill Clinton’s claims that Wallace didn’t ask the same tough questions of “right wingers”. Hell, this interview happened a mere two weeks ago.
Remember, Chris Wallace asked Bill Clinton one question before he flew off the handle. This whole thing got blown out of proportion when Bill Clinton lost his temper. There is no bias and it was not a right wing hit job. Far from it.
Others:
Hot Air has an update that shows Wallace asked Rumsfeld same question in ‘04
Bill Clinton, Chris Wallace, Fox News, Condoleezza Rice
6 Responses to “Is Chris Wallace Fair and Balanced?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I can only assume that you meant me when you referred to someone who “threw the September 10th Wallace - Condoleezza Rice interview…” in your face. In my defense, I was not trying to throw anything, but start an open debate.
I happen to disagree with you. Chris Wallace asked Bill Clinton, “Why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?” A question like this will put someone on the defensive, because it could come accross as an attack. Now, if Wallace asked Rice, “Why did you fail by letting the Taliban regroup?” Then I would agree with you. But he didn’t. He asked it in a manner that was not attacking.
And also, you failed to mention my other point in the post on You Tube. Wallace never asked Rice why we have not caught bin Laden to date. It’s been more than 8 months. It’s been 5 years. If we don’t catch him in 3 more will it still be Clinton’s fault?
You called two users on You Tube, the ones who disagreed with you, myopic. It seems to me that you are also unable to look at this situation objectively.
Yes, I was referring to your comment on YouTube but I was not naming names and kept you completely anonymous. I believe you are splitting hairs on the Rice interview.
It is ridiculous and absurd to expect that Wallace should ask everyone the exact same question in order to live up to some sort of imaginary standard that doesn’t even exist on the left.
In any case, the questions from the Rice interview are here for all to see. You can judge for yourself whether or not the questions are on par. I think the evidence is quite clear but we can agree to disagree.
And wrong, I called one user on YouTube myopic which was fine. He was Ok and we had a continuing discussion.
I really don’t understand what you are disagreeing with here. I was objective enough to go read the interview you referred me to. I did not embellish the questions from the interview when I posted them here and pointed out exactly where I believe Wallace was being fair. That is objective enough for me and nothing is hidden.
It does not take objectivity to read an article. It does, however, take objectivity to look at a story without distortion or personal feelings.
I disagreed with your interpretation that Wallace was harder on Rice than Clinton. But like you said, we can agree to disagree. =D
I don’t expect Wallace to ask the same exact question to everyone to live up to an “imaginary standard”. If he can ask a former president why he didn’t do more to catch bin Laden, then we should expect him to ask the current administration the same question.
I think everyone with an interest in politics has personal feelings on this matter. Sometimes agreeing to disagree is the best we can hope for. - Take care and stop by again!
I too wanted to test Bill Clinton’s implied assertion that Chris Wallace hadn’t asked similarly tough questions of anyone in the Bush administration.
In just a few minutes of searching I found not only the Rice interview you referenced in your post, but also an interview with General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Sec. Def. Rumsfeld. These were interviews BY Chris Wallace with these individuals and he was equally as harsh, if not more so.
Good point. I think people will find that emotions have taken over the facts on this issue. Wallace is pretty tough. I only wish more journalists would do the same otherwise things will never change.
It is much better to dismiss and forget than face the facts that terrorism was not created when George Bush came into office and that Democrats didn’t hand over some sort of utopian panacea when Bush took over.