About us Login Get email updates
Eric Boehlert
Print

How Fox's Chris Wallace became irrelevant

September 22, 2009 8:33 am ET

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.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 22, 2009 9:38 am ET)
      12  
      Eitehr you need the legitimacy of a Jennings/Brokaw/Rather etc... or you need the bombastic lunacy of a Beck/Hannity. You just can't associtae with the latter and hope to keep the former. And if you lose the former and don't embrace the latter, you'll disappear. If you're neither legitimet nor entertaining, who's going to bother tuning in?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj2970 (September 23, 2009 3:10 am ET)
        7  
        I am almost to the place where I think that Chris Wallace was a foundling and not the true son of Mike Wallace. His father was a truly great newscaster and even investigative journalist. Chris on the other hand is anything but fair and balanced in his diatribes. Poor thing, it is painful to listen to him because it always reminds how far off he is from being true to his own father's news reportage. Far too biased and I am even a Republican but Mike makes me worry about him since he skips the "fair and balanced" goal of the network.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 24, 2009 12:03 pm ET)
          6  
          Kind of like Irving Kristol and Bill?

          Or George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush?

          --------------------------------------------------------------------
          LOL
          Report Abuse
    • Author by goesto11 (September 22, 2009 10:40 am ET)
      9  
      Wallace has indeed been drinking the Fox Kool-Aid for a long time. Remember in 2005 when he compared Howard Dean to Tokyo Rose?

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jflz201884 (September 22, 2009 10:53 am ET)
      11 1
      "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."

      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



      Report Abuse
      • Author by GParks (September 22, 2009 6:57 pm ET)
        8  
        You make a great point and logical conclusion. Let's pray that "get a shot off" part does not happen.
        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!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by fullmain (September 23, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
        5  
        Good assessment, Jerry. Let's hope the reaction by Beck's advertisers can filter over to the other corporate supporters of the Republican hate machine at Fox. I think that's the only way they'll pay attention, and even that may not be enough.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (September 22, 2009 11:59 am ET)
      10  
      You have to know, if you're an educated person, that much of what is pushed as news and fact on FoxNews is neither. That's what I find so offensive. People who don't know any better, I feel sorry for. People who won't do their own research or won't accept other people's debunking of their talking points or who know the truth but still vomit out lies - those people can go to he11 in a handbasket.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by al75 (September 22, 2009 12:04 pm ET)
      4  
      Perhaps Wallace is in trouble for an additional reason: under Bush43, nearly ALL MSM journos were running scared, towing Rove's line, peddling whatever the "message of the day" was, or facing the consequences.

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by phredicles (September 22, 2009 12:24 pm ET)
      12  
      Wallace is finished as a serious journalist, eh? I believe a fellow Fox employee said best:
      [http://pinstripebindi.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/haha.jpg]
      Report Abuse
    • Author by night-n-day (September 22, 2009 12:50 pm ET)
      8  
      If you're going to operate as a wing of the GOP then that is how you're going to be treated. The bigger question is why ant Democratic politician would go on the FOX/RNC network. I've never heard any Republicans on Air America, nor does anyone expect they should.

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dandelion (September 22, 2009 2:17 pm ET)
        11  
        I've never heard any Republicans on Air America, nor does anyone expect they should.

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (September 22, 2009 4:24 pm ET)
          2 16
          I've never heard any Republicans on Air America, nor does anyone expect they should.

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Spiffarino (September 22, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
            4  
            Wrong yourself. Conservatives go on because Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow, et al don't scream over them and call them unpatriotic or worse. It's called "civility" which is a quality unknown to most of the flapping lips at Faux News.

            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.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (September 23, 2009 9:52 am ET)
                5
              I dont recall Bill Orilley screaming down Obama in his interview.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 23, 2009 1:34 pm ET)
                4 1
                Who the hell is "Bill Orilley?"
                Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (September 24, 2009 12:05 pm ET)
                6  
                And the relevance of that is?

                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.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by LiberalJesus (September 24, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
                4  
                You said "screaming down Obama"....you didnt say anybody else. So what that implies 'highliter' is that O'Liar does scream at certain guests, just not President Obama. I would be more than happy to provide links all day long of O'Liar shouting down and even insulting his guests over differing viewpoints. You cannot or will not find any clips of Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann ever shouting at their guests, or calling any of them un-American. If I am wrong, show me the proof. You know darn good and well that Fox News is nothing more than a racist republican outlet for their brand of hatred and nothing more. Go ahead 'highliter', prove me wrong.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by benjr (September 22, 2009 4:45 pm ET)
            10 1
            You're right. Obama won't go on Fox because of fear. It's not the way they treat him, demonize him, and generally work to undermine everything he does. Yup, it must be fear.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by GParks (September 22, 2009 7:06 pm ET)
            7  
            Yep ... thats it FEAR! Tell me ... if the crazy guy standing on the corner is screaming racial slurs at you, cursing you, has derogatory pictures, posters, and other vile, false caricatures of you, oh yea and has shown little and no respect for you or the "Office" you hold ... would you volenteer to go to THAT corner of town??????? With your family/freiends/wife/children/associates in towe???? Come on ... you would not and are being well .... a lie ing fool ... if for one minute you believe WE believe you'd show up!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (September 22, 2009 9:12 pm ET)
            8  
            Obama has gone on Fox before and he answered several difficult questions. You apparently have a faulty premise and/or memory.

            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.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (September 23, 2009 10:27 am ET)
                6
              Ok my bad he hasnt answered any difficult questions for a year!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (September 23, 2009 1:07 pm ET)
                6  
                Wrong again.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (September 24, 2009 12:07 pm ET)
                5  
                Really? Well, I guess if you're just watching Fox, you wouldn't know, now would you? They only tell you what they want you to know and being a LOYAL fan, you don't dare go behind their backs and research what they are saying, do you?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Kid Funkadelic (September 23, 2009 3:18 am ET)
            7  
            "Obama is obviously scared of any real questioning of his agenda."

            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.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by commysocialist (September 23, 2009 7:41 pm ET)
            5  
            Um, I don't think so. Obama does not want to go on Fox for the same reason he won't give an interview to the National Enquirer, they are not a serious news agency. However, If he avoids Talon News and that hard hitting journalist dynamo Jeff Gannon, well then, you may have a point.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by toombsie (September 22, 2009 12:52 pm ET)
      11 2
      I hope you are right Boehlert. Wallace definitely needs to go, he is one of the worst out there. It seems like he is trying to make a positive out of Obama's snub by whining every chance he gets, and knowing how stupid the general Fox News audience is he might actually succeed in drawing a bigger audience.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Rich in TX (September 22, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
        2 9
        I'm not getting your point, toombsie. Chris Wallace will not improve his ratings by leaving Fox, which are crushing the competition on cable.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Spiffarino (September 22, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
          6 1
          Faux is on basic cable throughout most of the country, so they get lots more chances at reaching the eyeballs of their core 65-and-over-can't-find-the-remote-so-I'll-turn-the-knob viewership.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by toombsie (September 22, 2009 6:31 pm ET)
          9  
          My point is Chris Wallace should be "irrelevant." I don't care about his ratings - he's one of the worst interviewers/journalists working in television today. That Cheney interview he did was beyond horrible - the fact that he was literally slobbering with love for the man who sat on his program to and straight out defended torture.

          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."
          Report Abuse
          • Author by toombsie (September 22, 2009 6:33 pm ET)
            4  
            btw - Media Matters really needs to add an edit button just so people can fix grammar errors and typo's in their posts...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jflz201884 (September 23, 2009 7:03 am ET)
              4 1
              I agree, but "typo's" doesn't need an apostrophe. Nobody really cares about minor points such as that. You're right. It's the big, embarrassing grammar goofs and typos one should avoid.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (September 23, 2009 8:24 am ET)
              6  
              That's really not a good idea. Every time a wingnut posts something out of line, they will just go back and change it, then say "that's not what I said! see?"

              They do have a preview function, and on Firefox I get automatic spellcheck. That's about all you can hope for.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by toombsie (September 23, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
                  3
                well they should give you 5 minutes to edit something then lock you out.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (September 24, 2009 1:13 am ET)
                  4  
                  Usually fixing something offensive would only require a few seconds' worth of work, changing a couple of words or just deleting a couple of sentences. And people could also just erase most or all of their posts before a thread closes, so there would be no way of ever saying "but last week you said the exact opposite", because the evidence of that would be gone.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (September 22, 2009 9:14 pm ET)
          6  
          Fox may be "crushing the competition on cable", but Wallace is not really a part of that. His show's ratings are not on parr with other Fox "News" entertainment services.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (September 24, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
          4  
          Ah, yes . . . you are referencing CABLE ratings. When compared to the Sunday morning talk shows on NBC, CBS and ABC, FNS comes in 4th. Nice try, but you are comparing apples to oranges when you are comparing anything on Fox to REAL news programs. Very few people in this country tune in to Fox. Even in the total reach category for daytime programming, Fox lags. They only lead in the primetime ENTERTAINMENT programming and the actual viewership is less than the people who tune in to reruns of Smallville on The CW.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (September 25, 2009 1:05 am ET)
            2  
            Beyond that, FNS airs on cable AND Fox Broadcast affiliates. Wallace is in both markets and cannot compete.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Major Tom (September 22, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
      12  
      I remember seeing Wallace on Shep Smith's show when Shep was mocking the Glenn Beck phenomenon.. Wallace told Smith, "I am on board, and I'd advise you to get onboard with this, too..." It was pretty obvious what he was really saying... Join us, turn to the dark side of the force!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Marge (September 22, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
      10  
      I do not understand how such an excellent news man and commentator as Mike Wallace had a son like Chris....AND to make matters worst the comment Chris made about his own father....it seems that Fox News not only spews lies it corrupts commentators who work there to their very soul.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (September 22, 2009 1:57 pm ET)
      7  
      I have a theory that each family is allocated a finite amount of honesty and integrity. And in the Wallace family, virtually all of it went to Chris Wallace's father, Mike Wallace.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JoshSN (September 22, 2009 2:14 pm ET)
        7
      Are you saying Chris Wallace should jump on the Glenn Beck crazy-wagon to keep his ratings up? One could come to that conclusion.

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by goesto11 (September 22, 2009 2:29 pm ET)
        10  
        That's not what the post is saying.

        It's saying Wallace ALREADY HAS jumped on the Glenn Beck crazy-wagon.

        And he sold his soul to do it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by alphatxs9322 (September 22, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
        9  
        We are really missing the point when it comes to FOXNEWS.

        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.


        Report Abuse
    • Author by jwill34007 (September 22, 2009 3:10 pm ET)
      4  
      I have sor some time now refuse to waste good electricity on Fox( Fix) News.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by papa bear3 (September 22, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
      9  
      I like Shepard Smith, he seems to be the last one there with a conscience, I remember when Joe the Plumber went on a rant about Israel and Smith practically had to stage an intervention to give him some facts, and he turned to the TV audience in a Morrow-onian moment says "I can't believe we have sunk this low,. . ." I forget the rest, but you don't see Shepard in prime time too much anymore.

      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..."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by artbee20007914 (September 22, 2009 5:34 pm ET)
      6  
      I thought Wallace has been irrelevant since 2006 when President Clinton bitch-slapped him during the interview when Wallace tried to blame 9-11 on the Clinton Administration.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (September 22, 2009 7:56 pm ET)
        11
      Chris and Fox irrelevant? How about the president becoming more like mm(for very little), mattering for very little every day. Fox generally thrashes the cable networks and does well on Sundays as well. As far as the president's shrinking relevance with each overexposure, this if from the Neilson ratings regarding David Letterman's highest ratings in 4 years with because of Obama:

      # In preliminary household metered markets DAVE and LATE SHOW dominated with a visit from president Obama with a 5.6/14 (household rating/share) compared to Conan’s 1.9/5.


      # It was Letterman’s best showing in four years. Comparably, when Obama visited with Tonight Show in March when Leno was still hosting, it did an 11.2 household rating



      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (September 22, 2009 8:43 pm ET)
        10  
        >>Chris and Fox irrelevant?

        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?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Isome (September 22, 2009 9:03 pm ET)
        6  
        If Obama and Media Matters mattered so little then Chris Wallace wouldn't continue to whine that the President snubbed him and Bill-O wouldn't mention Media Matters so often?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by starkcr31 (September 23, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
            5
          If Chris Wallace, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck mattered so little, sites like Media Matters and the Huffington Post wouldn't have an insane obsession with them.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 23, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
            6  
            And you, Starkers, wouldn't have an obsession with MMfA.

            Well, your obsession is to display ignorance, but it's still an obsession.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (September 24, 2009 12:18 pm ET)
            5  
            If Obama was doing so badly, Chris, Rush, Glenn and the entire Fox crew of miscreants wouldn't have an insane obsession with him.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (September 24, 2009 12:23 pm ET)
                4
              I guess that means Bush did an amazing job, right? I mean, the liberals were obsessed with him so he must have been doing great.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 23, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
        6  
        Also, Wallace's show isn't on Fox News, it's on the Fox TV network.
        PC may be proud to be a conservative, but he has no standing to be proud of his knowledge, which is close to non-existent.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by IronReign (September 22, 2009 11:20 pm ET)
      6  
      I guess we need to remind Mr. Wallace that the President of the United States (before a joint session of Congress) told the American people he was going to start calling people out.

      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?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Jacksonian (September 22, 2009 11:35 pm ET)
      6  
      Don't forget Wallace's softball interview with Darth Vader. Now that was lame.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Kid Funkadelic (September 23, 2009 3:12 am ET)
      6  
      Every week he goes on known bigot Michael Gallagher's show.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SteevK (September 23, 2009 4:31 am ET)
      7  
      And another thing: Wallace promised to hold Tammy Duckworth's "FEET TO THE FIRE"

      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.

      ..
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bvb720 (September 25, 2009 1:41 am ET)
           
        Posted on 24 September 2009 by Robert Seidman

        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
        Report Abuse
    • Author by spfldnet (September 23, 2009 9:17 am ET)
      3  
      It looks like his father's coat tails are all worn out.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dbl06 (September 23, 2009 10:53 am ET)
      4  
      THE SMALLER THE DOG THE MORE SHRILL THE BARK!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Socrates (September 23, 2009 11:36 am ET)
        2
      I would not mind so much the purposeful punking of Fox if someone else would ask more meaningful questions like:

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by starkcr31 (September 23, 2009 2:21 pm ET)
        7
      I think it's hysterical that they're calling out Chris Wallace for being irrelevant when NO liberal commentator has relevance whatsoever.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 23, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
        5  
        Do you never tire of displaying your ignorance? Oh, I forgot, it's your obsession.

        Well, far be it from me to interfere in someone's psychosis.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 23, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
        4 1
        Wait, I thought the entire media was liberal, Stark. Now, they have no relevance. You can't even keep your own simple mind straight.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (September 24, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
          3  
          Ah, but Stark will come back with "I really didn't mean that, I meant . . ." He learned to do that in college.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by starkcr31 (September 24, 2009 12:22 pm ET)
            4
          The media is relevant, most of the individual commentators aren't. I implore you to look at the ratings.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by bvb720 (September 25, 2009 1:39 am ET)
           
        Absolutely correct sir!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by commysocialist (September 23, 2009 7:33 pm ET)
      5  
      Chris Wallace should seriously consider another line of work. Fox news watchers do not seem to respond to right wing bias packaged into a nostalgic faux serious journalistic format. They like the emotion, the chalk boards filled with raving lunacy, the uneducated teaching the uneducated about today's issues. Fox news caters to the mob and Chris should get down and dirty if he wants to survive. A pity to think of the lost legacy of Mike Wallace. The nut fell far away from the tree in this case, at least he has the company of a lot of other nuts.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pcumbres (September 23, 2009 7:45 pm ET)
      3  
      I remember Mr. Chris Wallace when he worked as a local reporter for WNBC TV in New York. Apparently, he had a vision problem, but he would not wear glasses on camera. The camera's teleprompter had to be as close as possible. Wallace would always complain that the prompter was too far away, even though the camera was wedged against the platform he was sitting on.
      Wide angle distortion or glasses? I report, you decide.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by njguy93 (September 24, 2009 9:42 pm ET)
      3  
      Chris Wallace destroyed his career by coming to FOX NEWS CHANNEL. He sold his soul to Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, and now he's realizing it. Sure, he may get his obese paycheck every month, but he has to live with the humiliation of what has happened to him, which is largely his own fault. He will probably not be able to go to any actual serious news organization if he leaves FOX NEWS CHANNEL, because the taint of being with that propoganda outlet will of course always be stuck to him, and he knows it. The yolk will never come off. So Chris may live out the rest of his journalistic days as the irrelevant host of the last-place Sunday morning "news" show on FOX NEWS CHANNEL, fattening his bank account yet still wondering what he did to his career on the drive home from the studio after doing the show. Eventually, he may do a Brit Hume-type thing, where he leaves the show as host, but continues to remain on the network as a commentator, appearing perhaps regulary and/or sporadically to give quasi-objective commentaries while people at home look at him and wonder, "Isnt that the guy who used to host this show?"

      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
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SteevK (September 25, 2009 1:21 am ET)
      1  
      After reading this article, I was clearing some space on my DVR, when I came across a FNS show from 7/6 Howard Dean & John Podesta Vs Newt & Lamar Alexander over healthcare was the segment I watched. I noticed it went over 30 mins without a break! The rest of the show was only NOT loaded up with commercials and short segments (like Beck's show)

      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)

      ..
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bvb720 (September 25, 2009 1:37 am ET)
        1  
        Wrong! Beck is setting up Brett Baier and Shepard Smith. The advertisers that left the 5PM slot are just spread out in prime time.

        All Cable Channels are losing money. Check your facts before you speak.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bvb720 (September 25, 2009 1:34 am ET)
        2
      The Fox News Channel did cover President Obama's Joint session of Congress.

      The Fox Channel didn't. Get your facts straight.
      Report Abuse