How Fox's Chris Wallace became irrelevant
You think the Obama White House hit a nerve over the weekend when it purposefully left Fox News Sunday off the president's generous list of Sunday talk-show appearances?
The subsequent whining and childish name-calling from Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace became incessant and, of course, revealed more about the bitter and bruised host than it did the White House. No doubt the pity party that the thin-skinned journalist threw for himself in the wake of the embarrassing snub was genuine. But it went on for so many days and became so consuming that it seemed there was more to it than Wallace being forced to watch the Obama newsmaking parade from the sidelines. I think the slow-motion temper tantrum perhaps reflected Wallace's larger realization that his days of being taken seriously as a journalist are fading and that he can no longer be associated with the collectively unhinged Fox News family and maintain any dignity in the process. (Wallace's Sunday program airs on Fox TV, the entertainment sister to Fox News.)
Wallace realizes his days of having it both ways -- of being able to cash Rupert Murdoch's annual seven-figure checks without being tarred by Fox News' unique brand of idiocy -- are over, that the jig is up. Not only does the White House not care about Wallace's perennially last-place Sunday show, which functions as an in-house RNC broadcast and is watched by about as many people, but there's little indication that Wallace is still viewed as an important player within the Beltway press crowd.
His nonentity status has been hastened by Fox TV's unprecedented decision this year to essentially ban the president of the United States from its prime-time broadcasting, to refuse to carry not only nighttime presidential press conferences, but even the president's recent address to a joint-session of Congress. (Question: Will Fox TV air next year's State of the Union address? I have my doubts.)
In the past, Wallace starred in those types of telecasts. But no more. With Fox TV's entire national "news" operation now consisting of a last-place, 60-minute Sunday morning talk show, Wallace has been relegated to the sidelines.
It's every celebrity journalist's worst nightmare, and it's come true for Chris Wallace: He's become irrelevant. And that's a nasty career tumble for somebody once pegged as a possible nightly news anchor.
Once upon a time, Wallace stood out as Rupert Murdoch's Serious Person. He was among the very few Fox stars who came over from a rival network news team. (Wallace spent time at ABC as well as NBC.) And Wallace was seen as the adult supervising the Fox News romper room. Remember in 2008 when Wallace, on the air, slapped the wrists of Fox & Friends hosts for their relentless bashing of Obama?
But no more. Wallace in 2009 has become just another willing cog in the Fox misinformation machine. Wallace, who has been telling fellow journalists for years that he's a "straight newsman," has ditched the outdated "fair and balanced" shtick and has given in to the Fox fever swamp.
To be realistic, it's not like Wallace had any kind of choice. Short of resigning, that is. Because of the radical changes that Fox News has embraced this year with the arrival of Glenn Beck and the unvarnished hate and paranoia he peddles, it's been impossible for Wallace to stick to his old above-it-all script from days gone by. There's no longer a middle ground for Wallace to occupy within the Fox family. You either drink the Kool-Aid there or you don't. And it's obvious that Wallace, especially with his comically distorted "death book for veterans" fiasco from a few weeks back, is willing to play along with whatever warped brand of so-called journalism Roger Ailes is now peddling.
Either Wallace is completely comfortable with the new Fox News -- where the president is attacked relentlessly around the clock via bogus "news reports," where guest rosters are routinely stacked in favor of conservatives, where the news organization sponsors purely political rallies, and where hosts routinely demonize the president of the United States as a racist Nazi -- or Wallace is uncomfortable with it.
The silence from Wallace so far this year has been deafening, which means he clearly supports what Fox News is doing.
And again, we know that in the past, Wallace wasn't shy about calling out what he considered to be egregious Obama-bashing by Fox News. We know that because in March 2008 (when the host was trolling around for a Fox News Sunday interview with Obama), Wallace appeared on Fox News and expressed his irritation after having listened to a morning full of nonstop attacks on the Democratic candidate. "I think you're somewhat distorting what Obama had to say," he told the Fox News hosts. "I didn't think it was fair," Wallace subsequently told The New York Observer. "I didn't think we were providing the full context of what [Obama] was saying."
Today, of course, Fox News bashes Obama hour after hour, week after week, and month after month. Today, Fox News unfairly rips quotes and facts out of context pretty much as the newsroom rule, yet it's crickets from Wallace, who sits quietly. Ever since Fox News' meal ticket Beck arrived, Wallace has had almost nothing to say about anchors and commentators who are not "fair" to Obama or who are "distorting what Obama had to say."
By contrast, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith had the courage and the decency earlier this year to call out the right-wing "crazies" on the fringe who targeted Obama and were feeding off incessant, conspiratorial hatred -- hate "that's not based in fact," as Smith stressed. (Naturally, right-wingers online immediately called for Smith's firing.) At least that Fox anchor expressed a commonsense concern about what that kind of raw, irrational hostility does to a democracy. But not Wallace. He knows to sit on his hands and to keep his mouth shut.
Except, of course, when he's not busy spreading nonsense like the charade about the "death book," an absolutely absurd conspiracy theory that Wallace must have known came without even the faintest hint of reality to it. (Here's the theory: In order to contain health care costs, the federal government under Obama is using a booklet on end-of-life counseling to urge U.S. veterans to kill themselves; it's trying to convince them that their lives aren't worth living.)
It was the type of patented foolery you'd expect a proud partisan like Sean Hannity to push. But it was Wallace who signed on as the smear's chief sponsor. It was Wallace who sat through two Fox News Sunday segments teasing out purposefully ignorant questions about how bureaucrats were trying to off veterans. Wallace played dumb like it was an Olympic sport. While the other Sunday shows were at least trying to engage in actual civic debate, Wallace spent his Sunday clowning on air.
And as a bonus, Wallace may have made the single dumbest statement uttered on a Sunday-morning talk show this year. Playing dumb, Wallace wanted to know why anyone would think about end-of-life counseling unless they're, you know, dying [emphasis added]:
Usually people don't even contemplate end of life until they're in an irreversible coma.
Flash to Wallace: When somebody slides into in "an irreversible coma," it's a little late for them to begin end-of-life counseling.
With the "death book" production, Wallace didn't merely engage in lazy journalism or allow his guest to sidestep important questions, he served as archetype -- as a co-sponsor -- of the debacle. He plucked the story (a smear campaign, really) from relative obscurity, and then he trampled the facts in hopes of launching the story nationally.
To me, the "death book" nonsense marked a new low for Wallace. And who knows? It may have marked the tipping point in terms of when the White House wrote off Fox News Sunday as a serious enterprise. The insult-to-injury part for Wallace professionally, though, was that the soggy "death book" plot went nowhere. The stupid conspiracy theory had a shelf life of about 36 hours, as not even the fact-free denizens of the GOP Noise Machine could hoist the lame story off the ground.
Honestly, though, I can see why Wallace was grasping at the "death book" straw: His Sunday morning ratings remain dismal, and if the phony controversy had taken flight, maybe he could have boosted his shaky viewership, which, over the summer, reached astonishing lows, even for Wallace. In fact, he hit the ratings basement just weeks before the "death book" nonsense aired, which makes me wonder if alarms had gone off inside the producers' offices at Fox News Sunday, and if perhaps that's why a desperate Wallace agreed to push the "death book" smear in a naked attempt to manufacture some (right-wing) buzz.
Why the panic? For its August 2 telecast, Wallace's show attracted just 924,000 viewers.
It's hard to explain just how difficult it is to air the same program for more than a decade on affiliated television stations all across the country, as Fox has with Fox News Sunday, and have that show fail to attract at least 1 million viewers in some weeks. With the dormant Fox News Sunday, Wallace has defied the television odds. (An often-forgotten fact: Wallace briefly hosted NBC's Meet the Press in the years before Tim Russert turned the Sunday program around and built it into a ratings powerhouse.)
In a business built on ratings and "gets" (i.e. landing the most newsworthy guests, such as Obama), Wallace has neither.
Of course, it's not the ratings woes that have done the most damage to Wallace's reputation this year. (He's been plagued by those for most of this decade.) It's Fox News' relentless campaigns of turbo-misinformation. And the fact that Wallace has loyally signed up for duty. That's why, as a newsman, he's become irrelevant.
Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter.

















Or George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL
When Dean said we had a losing strategy in Iraq, Wallace said: "We are in a war. We do have 150,000-plus American soldiers over there. I mean, it's Tokyo Rose, for God sakes, going on radio saying we can't win the war."
According to Wallace, questioning the justification for and strategy of war is a criminal act.
Maybe I missed something there, but why wouldn't the same rule apply to the conscientious Shepard Smith?
As for the arrival of Glenn Beck, peddler of "unvarnished hate and paranoia," I think it's Fox's reaction to a more significant arrival: that of a Democrat -- an exotic-looking one, at that -- as president of the United States. Obama's term had scarcely begun when the Fox-led wailing began. It was as if three years and 11 months is too long to wait for change. Then came the hiring of Beck and his boo-hooing "Maybe it's only me, but I love my country so much." He seemed to imply that something should happen to speed things up. Then came the several protesters bearing guns at rallies. Such menacing demonstrations of contempt should find the whole country jittery. Then came radio rabble-rouser Rush Limbaugh's declaration that nothing this president says or does could possibly be right.
No wonder Beck's sponsors are bailing. This goes far beyond the scourging of Bill Clinton a decade ago. If someone gets off a shot at the president and a search of the assailant's apartment reflects admiration of Beck's incendiary "Obama as racist" claim, Beck sponsors who stayed would be hard put to explain their decision. (Similarly roped in would be Republican leaders who neglected to call out the crazies.)
By pulling their ads, dozens of sponsors drew a line. Sensible people do that. Fox family members, take note.
Jerry Elsea
As an aside ... I am loving the way President Obama is appearing on National TV ... it gives more Americans an opportunity to "hear", "see" and "experience" for themselves the sanest President we've had in 8 years!
Obama doesn't have the capacity to inspire that kind of fear + obedience. Most MSM journos are still lame cowards, but they're not forced to defile themselves night after night (e.g. ignoring the indications Iraq wasn't a threat during the run up to war in 2003).
Wallace, as Boehlert describes, still has to kneel and obey - but now he's the odd man out.
This idea that FOX can arbitrarily become a legitimate journalistic (sic) voice after unashamedly spewing RNC talking points for years only makes sense if you think no one is aware of your behavior.
Who the hell doesn't know that FOX works as a mouthpiece for GOP?
It's the same kind of hypocrisy that makes nutjob extremists upset when Barney Frank justifiably puts down the lunatic who equated President Obama with Hitler. FOX was apoplectic, "How dare he speak that way to a constituent?!" Hey, numbnuts - She called him HITLER!!! ANY put-downs in response to such sh*t-flinging immaturity are appropriate.
Republicans, conservatives and libertarians are on Air America all the time. That's the difference between liberal and conservative media -- the liberals aren't afraid of opposing viewpoints.
Wrong Its called Conservatives are not scared to go on shows/networks that have opposing views and might get some hard questions. Obama is obviously scared of any real questioning of his agenda. If he goes on FOX he might get asked a question he doesn’t want to answer.
Obama won't go on because he has no reason to legitimize Faux. It's not news, so why pretend?
Oddly, the one big exception is Beck. He's really rather cordial, even if most of what he says ranges from the ridiculous to the insane.
Fox felt that Obama's speech was unworthy of their time recently, yet, questioned why he didn't come on Fox News Sunday. Obviously, Fox only wants Obama on their network under their terms. That's not being a news organization, that's being a propaganda mill.
O'Reilly [not sure who Orilley is] shouts over his guests all the time and contrary to Bill's objections, has often told his guests to SHUT UP when he disagrees with them. Shoot, I was listening to his radio program the day he turned off Lis Wiehl's mike because she rightfully pointed out the fallacy of the point he was making. She was right, he was wrong, so he turned off her mike.
Yeah, Fox is a forum I'd like to go if I were the target of their daily ranting, propagandizing and scorn.
That said, maybe some conservatives should just stick to more friendly media for good reason. We all know what happened when that mean ole Katie Couric was let loose on defenseless little Barbie.
Yea right like, where is Rev.Wright?When did you stop being a Communist?Only on FOX is the race card used against ALL minorities.On FOX whites never do anything wrong, it's all Blacks and Hispanic peoples fault.
It cracks me up that Chris is the one "being the baby" about the Obama snub, but the problem is he is effectively manipulating the public using the Fox New's propaganda machine to whine and complain as he paints Obama as the baby when in reality it's the other way around. He'll likely trick the gullible Fox crowd, and doing so he might end up with better ratings because of the snub just so people can hear "what Obama is so afraid of."
They do have a preview function, and on Firefox I get automatic spellcheck. That's about all you can hope for.
If you really feel that strongly about technical matters, then either be very careful or tack on a correcting post. Giving trolls that powerful of a weapon to screw with your head is simply not worth it.
924,000 viewers may suck, but it still is more than I get.
I can say it's more than twice the number of viewers I have.
It's saying Wallace ALREADY HAS jumped on the Glenn Beck crazy-wagon.
And he sold his soul to do it.
Conservatives are absolutely wonderful at driving a story and going for the kill as witnessed by Jones and ACORN. On ACORN they have been after them for more than two years, non-stop bias reporting. Beck is relentless with his smears.
Their main weapon is repetition.
So here we have Beck calling Obama a racist " This guy [Obama] is a racist, with a deep seated hatred for white people and white culture.' and we don't drive the story.
FOXNEWS and Beck now this was a huge mistake.
Other than their initial statement, they have been utterly silent about this matter. FoxNews knows this is indefensible. That is why they have adopted silence as their main defense. Unfortunately, it has been working. Foxnews and Beck are acting like this statement never took place.
When Fox News has liberals in this kind of position they are merciless. They do it often and early.
We need to create a daily drum beat asking FOXNEW and Beck to apologize and/or explain his remarks. I know Color of Change has done a wonderful job with the boycott but this is different that demanding an official response from both Beck and Foxnews.
We need to demand an explanation for the remarks. This must be demanded on a daily basis. Every day and 24/7.
They don't have an answer for it. Last night Juan Williams brought this up as one of the reasons Obama did not talk to Fox News and Bill Oreally did not touch it. He left it alone.
Tonight Glenn Beck is on CBSnews: Did Couric even ask why he called the President a racist, with a deep hatred of white people and white culture?
I always found it interesting that Beck in his statement about Obama used the term "white culture"--A phrase often used by white supremacists.
Beck is on both FOX & Friends and Bill O'reilly once a week. We must demand for them to confront him and ask him to explain his statement about Obama.
How can we left this man and FOXNEWS off the hook? For Goodness sake Obama is half-white and was raised by his white grandmother. FOXNEWS savaged the Dixie Chicks for a lot less--A lot less. From top to bottom they went after them and they did damage.
It has been almost two months since Beck called Obama a racist and they are getting away with it without any explanation and or apology. I am not talking about the boycott, the boycott does not force them to explain the statement.
Foxnews need to explain their silence about this statement. Please keep this issue alive. Please dmenad answers from FOXNEWS and Beck about this statement.
They must either accept and defend it, or they need to apologize for it.
Repetition is the key.
I wonder if, in 1930s Nuremburg, Joseph Goebels turned to Rudolf Hess and said, "I am on board, and I'd advise you to get on board with this, too..."
In just 6 months, the president is bringing about 1/2 the amount of interested viewers than before.
So sorry Mr. President and media matters for very little.
What a nice straw man argument! Did Bohler say "Chris and Fox," or did he just say "Chris?" You completely have to put words in Bohler's words in order to make any argument.
Then there is this gem: "Fox generally thrashes the cable networks and does well on Sundays as well." But MMFA has just demonstrated the *opposite!* Did you think by grouping in Sunday with FOX in general that no one would notice? We also have to keep reminding you FOX cheerleaders that real networks get about ten times as many viewers as all cable combined. So FOX appeals to a very small number of viewers--the freaks who actually believe Glen Beck.
Also, nice job at deflection. It is true that Wallace ratings absolutely suck. So you come up with some irrelevant (and basically wrong) point about the president's ratings. Why do you think Wallace's rating suck so bad? Could it be because FOX has turned into even more of a freak show, and the freaks don't want to see an anchor who even pretends at doing serious news?
Well, your obsession is to display ignorance, but it's still an obsession.
Mr. Wallace and Fox have made there bed and now they need to lie in it.
That being said, I wonder if Mr. Wallace and Fox would please tell us how it feels to be "Tea Bagged" by POTUS?
REALLY bad choice of words! I mean, don't they do even the most cursory research on their guests? It's the second sentence in her Wiki-bio - she lost both legs in Iraq!
Perhaps I'm being over-sensitive, but a friend told me that his opinion of McCain changed (for the worse) in 2006, when he stood with her GOP chicken-hawk opponent who accused her of "cutting and running" My friend, who is a vet of the Iraq war, said he yelled at the TV "She was THERE, it's why she can't run anymore!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back on Eric's point: FNS has been on a downward spiral for quite a while - in quality if not ratings - since the election season. This coincides with their more partisan slant (like the new segment spotlighting bright, new rising stars in the GOP - Cantor, and that Eddie Munster guy from the Midwest)
Of course, the whole Sunday morning news-chat swamp is a liberal-free zone: Steph is so scared of being attacked as liberal that he over-compensates - plus, like the rest of the 8-figure hosts, he's obsessed with (his) taxes, which moves him to the right.
..
Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for September 23, 2009
P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,524,000 viewers
CNN – 609,000 viewers
MSNBC –377,000 viewers
CNBC – 236,000 viewers
HLN – 375,000 viewers
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,910,000viewers
CNN— 1,017,000 viewers
MSNBC –817,000 viewers
CNBC – 441,000 viewers
HLN – 648,000viewers
25-54 Total Day
FNC –433,000 viewers
CNN –197,000 viewers
MSNBC –131,000 viewers
CNBC – 92,000 viewers
HLN- 188,000 viewers
25-54 Prime Time
FNC – 814,000 viewers
CNN – 343,000 viewers
MSNBC –286,000 viewers
CNBC – 215,000 viewers
HLN – 239,000 viewers
Do you support cutting off ALL federal funding of ACORN? Yes or No. Why/why not?
Why does the CBO reflect different budget impact figures regarding Health Care than what you are suggesting? Why can we just stop the fraud you speak of NOW - stop the WASTE NOW?
Specifically, where will you place the Gitmo detainees? When?
How do you intend to safe the border, especially our southern border? How / when will your plan be funded?
Who is auditing / monotiring the bank bailout expenditures? Does B of A's executive bonus payout concern you?
What plans do you have to stimulate the economy to reduce unemployment - now in CA at over 12%?
I REALLY DON'T CARE about the White Sox or all the softball questions. Quit kissing the president's back side and asking the questions that matter.
Well, far be it from me to interfere in someone's psychosis.
Wide angle distortion or glasses? I report, you decide.
Chris Wallace joined FOX NEWS CHANNEL in December 2003 as the replacement on FOX NEWS SUNDAY for the now-deceased Tony Snow, who was the original anchor of the show from the inception of FOX NEWS CHANNEL in 1996 until 2003. George W. Bush was still President at the time, so FOX NEWS CHANNEL, while still of course a propoganda network, was giving defensive propoganda at the time and not going on the offensive and trying to pro-actively undermine the President of the United States of America. In other words, it was bad, but not as bad back then in many ways. At the time, Chris Wallace was also considered a serious journalist. He had been with ABC and with NBC before that. He probably knew what FOX NEWS CHANNEL was all about at the time, but he thought he could somehow play it smooth and try to have it both ways--be the grown-up objective newsman who just happens to be on a network that is anything but objective and has a bunch of partisan shills masquerading as journalists, but he just happens to be the serious one that you can trust.
He apparently didnt know the direction that FOX NEWS CHANNEL would go in just five years later with the election of the first black President in American history, the first Democratic President in nearly a decade, along with the addition of Glenn Beck and the hardcore direction his network would take in attempting to undermine America's first black President. Little did he know the precarious position he would be put in and how he would be forced to take sides and watch his credibility crumble before his very eyes. And everyone else was watching as well, of course. Perhaps if he had known all this back then, he wouldn't have signed on with FOX NEWS CHANNEL, and stayed at ABC or at least he would have gone somewhere else where he could have still been taken seriously.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
I went back to the beginning and timed all the break time - it was less than NINE MINUTES - and plenty of those ads were (non-paid) promos for upcoming Fox shows.
How much you suppose they're making on 5 minutes of paid ads? Doesn't seem like enough to pay even Wallace's salary, let alone Juan Williams, Stephen Hayes, Liasson, and Kristol...
Irrelevant won't do him in, but how much of a loss is Rupert willing to take? (Beck's losing him money, Wkly STD has NEVER turned a profit, etc)
..
All Cable Channels are losing money. Check your facts before you speak.
The Fox Channel didn't. Get your facts straight.