About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Why is CBS paying Nicolle Wallace to sound like Tony Snow?

September 29, 2006 11:46 am ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: In her first appearance as a CBS "political consultant," former White House communications director Nicolle Wallace repeated several talking points recently advanced by the Bush administration.

30 Comments

On September 25, CBS News announced the hiring of Nicolle Wallace, who left her job as White House communications director three months ago, as a "political consultant." Two days later, Wallace made her first appearance on CBS in this capacity and immediately repeated talking points recently advanced by the White House communications office and President Bush himself.

On the September 27 edition of CBS' Early Show, co-host Harry Smith sat down with Wallace for a brief discussion of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate -- completed in April -- which concluded that the Iraq war has led to an increase in global terrorism. Smith first asked her, "What do you make of all of it?" Her response:

WALLACE: I think the most telling thing now is that this NIE has formed the basis of the public communications that the White House has engaged in, in a very concerted effort over the last six weeks to communicate directly to the American people about the stakes in Iraq. And they've made a lot of these points that are ... being played up and that are being politicized by Democrats -- have been made by the president.

Wallace's claim -- that the assessments contained in the NIE echo the statements made in recent months by Bush and his aides -- was laid out in detail in a White House press release published a day before her appearance on CBS. The September 26 release, titled "The Rest of the Story: The NIE Reflects Previous Statements About the War on Terror," purported to show how the Bush administration's message on Iraq has been consistent with the findings of the intelligence report. During a September 27 press briefing, White House press secretary Tony Snow reiterated this point, saying, "The NIE mirrors statements that the president has made about the nature of the threat that we face."

Wallace later took issue with Smith's assertion that Bush "decided to merge" the war on terror and the war on Iraq. Wallace replied, "[H]e didn't decide to merge them." Smith then noted that Bush has repeatedly stated that "the focal point of the war on terror is the war in Iraq." Following is Wallace's response:

WALLACE: I think that's because he listens to the words of the terrorists, who have written to each other in communications that it's very important that we're able to intercept that the central front in their war on terror is Iraq and that the stakes for the terrorists are higher in no other place than in Iraq. So, I think that's why he said, "Don't take my word for it. Listen to the terrorists themselves."

Again, the argument offered by Wallace can be traced back to a White House press release, this one titled "In Their Own Words: What the Terrorists Believe, What They Hope to Accomplish, and How They Intend to Accomplish It." The September 5 release included a section headlined, "The Terrorists On The Importance Of Iraq," that listed statements from Al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri on the need for victory in Iraq. The release also coincided with a September 5 speech from Bush in which he quoted extensively from various terrorist communications and asserted, "[T]hey've made clear that the most important front in their struggle against America is Iraq."

Moreover, a day before Wallace's appearance on the Early Show, homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend held a White House press briefing on the NIE during which NBC News White House correspondent David Gregory questioned Bush's repeated conflation of the war in Iraq and the war on terror, saying, "[O]ne might conclude from this, though it does not explicitly state it in any way here, that had we not done Iraq first ... that you might not have created what they refer to here as the Iraqi jihad movement that has attracted so much motion." Townsend -- like Wallace -- responded by citing the "the quotations from Al Qaeda, themselves." She said, "[P]ut aside for the moment what the president has said, because he's been clear about the administration's view. Let's look at what bin Laden and Zawahiri have said ... about this [Iraq] being either where they're going to have ultimate victory or ultimate defeat."

Not only does Wallace still appear to be taking her cues from the White House, she has frequently lavished praise on Bush in her various media appearances since leaving the administration in late June. For instance, on the August 27 edition of ABC's This Week, during a discussion of Bush's handling of the Gulf Coast reconstruction following Hurricane Katrina, she referred to him as a "president who is walk-the-walk, who made a commitment and is following through on that commitment." Later in the show, Wallace remarked, "I think you see Republicans, you know, voting their conscience on issues like stem cell [research]. ... That's certainly what the president did." Further, during a June 30 interview on CNN's The Situation Room, Wallace described Bush as an "incredibly consequential and relevant leader of our times" and "somebody who, you know, fights for what he believes in."

From the September 27 edition of CBS' The Early Show:

SMITH: We want to bring in Nicolle Wallace, a former communications director for President Bush who is now a CBS News political consultant. Nicolle, good morning.

WALLACE: Good morning.

SMITH: It sure has been interesting to watch the war of words over the last couple of days. What do you make of all of it?

WALLACE: Well, we've seen this before. In the weeks -- about the same point in the election cycle in 2004, there was a very similar environment. We saw leaks from the intelligence community. We saw them leap to the front pages of The New York Times and other newspapers.

SMITH: Mm-hmm.

WALLACE: We saw the White House -- I was at the campaign at the time, but we worked to release more of this information. But I think the most telling thing now is that this NIE has formed the basis of the public communications that the White House has engaged in, in a very concerted effort over the last six weeks to communicate directly to the American people about the stakes in Iraq. And they've made a lot of these points that are --

SMITH: Right.

WALLACE: -- that are being played up and that are being politicized by Democrats --

SMITH: Well, it's --

WALLACE: -- have been made by the president.

SMITH: It's interesting, though, for this president, because he doesn't get good marks for the war in Iraq, but he does get good marks, in so far as the public is concerned, about the war on terror.

WALLACE: Right.

SMITH: He's decided to merge the two. And what this intelligence estimate says is: This is a failure. Is -- the war is a failure, and it's created this sort of jihadist utopia over there.

WALLACE: You know, he didn't decide to merge them. I think what he's done --

SMITH: Well, how do you -- what do you mean? No, he -- in his verbiage -- for how many years now, he's merged those two issues. He says they're the same thing. He's said 100 times in the last month --

WALLACE: Sure.

SMITH: -- that the focal point of the war on terror is the war in Iraq.

WALLACE: And I think that's because he listens to the words of the terrorists, who have written to each other in communications that it's very important that we're able to intercept that the central front in their war on terror is Iraq, and that the stakes for the terrorists --

SMITH: Mm-hmm.

WALLACE: -- are higher in no other place than in Iraq. So, I think that's why he's said, "Don't take my word for it. Listen to the terrorists themselves." And he delivered a pretty powerful speech in the walk-up to 9-11 where he really relied on the words of the terrorists --

SMITH: Mm-hmm.

WALLACE: -- to convey the importance of victory in Iraq to their cause.

SMITH: All right. Nicolle, thanks so much for being with us, and welcome aboard.

WALLACE: Thanks a lot.

SMITH: We're happy to have you here at CBS News.

From the August 27 edition of ABC's This Week:

WALLACE: You know, I think there's the sense that, as with Iraq, and as with any other issue that voters will go to the polls and express themselves on in November, that it's a choice. And again, the contrast is a president, who is walk-the-walk, who made a commitment and is following through on that commitment, and Democrats, who, you know, when national Democrats send out press releases railing against the president's performance on Katrina, I think they show that they are now out of touch. People in the region are focused on rebuilding. Everyone you talk to --

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): But most Americans agree. Most Americans think the government hasn't done a good job.

WALLACE: Well, but I think, again, the administration has an opportunity to show that it is walk-the-walk and it has done that. The president made promises a year ago, and he's going back down there this week. He is holding the government's feet to the fire himself, so, I don't think that there'll be an opportunity for Democrats to politicize the response.

[...]

WALLACE: Oh, I think you see Republicans, you know, voting their conscience on issues like stem cell [research]. And I think that that is something that the White House understands. That's certainly what the president did. And they pay a lot of attention to scientific developments on this front. I know that whenever new studies come out, they're followed very closely and policy folks on up to the president pay very close attention.

From the June 30 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

JOHN KING (guest host): What did you learn about president at that moment?

WALLACE: Well, I think the president is somebody who, you know, fights for what he believes in, and, you know, he stood by her [former Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers], and I think was proud to do so. And, you know, it was a difficult time here, no doubt.

[...]

KING: What does the president say when he watches television or reads the newspapers and sees the term "lame duck"?

WALLACE: I -- you know, I don't think he will accept that, you know, until he's back at his ranch. And, even then, I think he will always be an incredibly consequential and relevant leader of our times. And, so, he's told the press directly, the folks that cover us, that they are going to be sprinting until the finish -- that he is going to keep it interesting. And I'm sure he will.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tommy (September 29, 2006 11:50 am ET)
         

      My guess would be the same reason ABC hired George Stephanopoulos.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by daveblazo9487 (September 29, 2006 12:07 pm ET)
           

        I do not agree with you often, but you make a good point.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (September 29, 2006 12:11 pm ET)
           

        And I suppose you think that Stephanopoulos is a lackey for the left? Good luck trying to prove that one.

        Dick Morris used to work for Clinton. Chris Mathews used to work for Carter. John Dean (author of "Worse than Watergate," a scathing indictment of GWB's administration) used to work for Nixon. Hey, David Brock used to get paid by Scaife. And, as many trolls like to trumpet, Robert Byrd used to be a member of the KKK.

        The point, in case you missed it, is that people change sometimes. You can't automatically assume that someone's loyalty to a particular person, position, or party is something that goes on forever.

        In sum, if you're going to hijack the conversation with a red herring about Stephanopoulos, then by all means show us why you think he's a similar case. If you can't do that, then let the conversation go back on topic where it belongs.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (September 29, 2006 12:14 pm ET)
             

          The point, in case you missed it, is that people change sometimes. You can't automatically assume that someone's loyalty to a particular person, position, or party is something that goes on forever.

          ********************

          You just made the point I was making much better than I did. Thank you.

          The woman's been on for one day.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by political_left-religious_right (September 29, 2006 12:25 pm ET)
               

            And already proved that she's a shill for the current administration. Thank you, Tommy, it's you that's made my point.

            Now, are you going to answer my post, or just admit you've lost?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (September 29, 2006 12:31 pm ET)
                 

              You did. You answered your own questions by giving many examples of former political appointees or advisors whose current views and ideology are in apparent direct conflict with their earlier ones.

              You proved my point brilliantly, pat yourself on the back.

              Nice job.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by clams casino (September 29, 2006 12:50 pm ET)
                   

                It's political_left's point that has been proven, but I suspect you know that. Wallace has already proven herself to be a mouthpiece for the administration, while the examples that political_left gave are, in your own words, people whose current views and ideology are in apparent direct conflict with their earlier ones. You can't possibly pretend to not understand the difference.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (September 29, 2006 12:57 pm ET)
                     

                  Wow, now that is weak, even for your endless contrary positions you take.

                  So if we went back to all the examples that are listed above, and examined their first day on the job - you are saying that they instantly spouted exactly what they say today? Chris Matthews hasn't changed? John Dean? David Brock?

                  Let it rest, find another topic to disagree with me on because this ain't it, clams

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by fatbob (September 29, 2006 1:04 pm ET)
                       

                    if you could provide any evidence that that steph. is parroting leftist or progressive or democratic talking points then you might have a logical argument, if you can't, join the army and go fight in your war in Iraq.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by clams casino (September 29, 2006 1:10 pm ET)
                       

                    ...your argument here is that Wallace might one day change her political viewpoints so we can't point to what she's done on her first day on the job? And you're saying that my argument and political_left's practical examples are weak? Come on. And what's with constantly pointing out that my positions are contrary to yours, as if that's some sort of an insult? If I disagree with you, then my argument is going to be contrary to yours. That's the definition of contrary. If you're trying to use the word as a pejorative then it would more readily apply to you, seeing as how you manage to create an argument in every thread you post, even when you aren't in disagreement with the item that's been posted.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by tommy (September 29, 2006 1:18 pm ET)
                         

                      Read again what "political......." wrote > "The point, in case you missed it, is that people change sometimes. You can't automatically assume that someone's loyalty to a particular person, position, or party is something that goes on forever".

                      If you have any argument, it his with his statement, not mine. Therein lies the contrary position of yours. You argue with me even though it wasn't even my statement.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by clams casino (September 29, 2006 1:30 pm ET)
                           

                        ...nobody is disputing that. But the argument here isn't whether or not Wallace is going to be a right wing shill at some point in the future. It's whether she is right now, and all evidence points to YES.

                        Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (September 29, 2006 12:27 pm ET)
               

            ...she's been on for one day, and she's already parrotting administration talking points.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by sluggo (September 29, 2006 6:24 pm ET)
           

        Good job, Tommy...

        Report Abuse
    • Author by redking75687 (September 29, 2006 11:59 am ET)
         

      She's catapultin' that propaganda! Shovel it like it was gold, babe! Just another barbie doll reading from the script.

      Reading alternative news sources just shows all the networks work in tight collusion with the White House press office to say the same messages. No way can that many people be that one-sided without a controlling factor. So much information never makes it to air. US tv news isn't a credible source of information at all. FOX has a reported 60% misinformation rate, none of the others do much better. It's all just video garbage.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Dem02020 (September 29, 2006 12:44 pm ET)
           

        If what passes for "news shows" on TV today were instead toilets, I'd say they were way past due being flushed.

        And flushing that crap away is just what we do, when we make the Internet Wire our source of information... where else would we be informed of this "political consultant" on CBS?

        I bet they, CBS, made as little as possible of that title "political consultant"... I bet if it was said out loud, it was said only once; or that if it appeared on-screen under the "political consultant's" face, it appeared only briefly.

        Praise the Internet Wire as a source of information, where if we don't want to, we don't have to suffer the crap of "political consultants" on the "news".

        If these TV "news shows" were sceptic tanks (which they are), then not only do they need to be pumped out, but they need also to be filled in...

        As you would pump out and then fill in any other hole, that contained nothing but stinking and sickening waste.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by rusty shackleford (September 29, 2006 12:06 pm ET)
         

      people engaged in her very old profession do not work for free. Just ask Michael Savage, who seems to be an expert on the subject.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by daveblazo9487 (September 29, 2006 12:06 pm ET)
         

      Ok if you dont want Nicolle Wallace, would James Carville or Paul Begala be acceptable?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (September 29, 2006 12:22 pm ET)
           

        Ok if you dont [sic] want Nicolle Wallace, would James Carville or Paul Begala be acceptable?

        That depends. If they hired Carville and properly labelled him "liberal political consultant," that would be fine. It would also be fine if they labelled Wallace "conservative political consultant." Giving her the title of just "political consultant" makes it appear that she will be above the fray and not try to push any particular agenda. Sadly, she has already proved that this will not be the case.

        I'm all for having conservatives, moderates, and liberals in the media, and giving them equal chance to convince people of the rightness of their positions. What's destructive to public discourse is when one side dominates, and furthers the problem by trying to paint themselves as something other than what they are; in this case, with the generic "political consultant" title, and of course, with the famously inaccurate "Fair and Balanced."

        Report Abuse
        • Author by kgonz (September 29, 2006 5:58 pm ET)
             

          Thank you for clearly spelling out the point Tommy wants to ignore.

          I think it's hilarious that Tommy tries to paint Clams as "contrary," when it's actually he who best exemplifies someone being contrary, as he keeps seeking to just deny that such analysis is valid by making the argument simplistic and diversionary. Seriously - if a "liberal" former White House staffer had been given the same title and parroted White House talking points under Clinton, conservatives would be right to point it out and complain of bias.

          But no, Tommy chooses to contrarily argue that there's no "there" there because either:

          a) he wants to obfuscate the complexities and subtleties that create bias based on the media's relationship with the American power structure.

          or

          b) he just can't get it and seeks to cover that with denial, denial, denial . . .

          I actually hope for a) because b) is just sad.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by joanl (September 29, 2006 1:31 pm ET)
           

        Its not the issue of who would be ok for a political consultant. I think the better term to call these Partisans would be "Contributors".

        Report Abuse
    • Author by dave_chicago (September 29, 2006 12:06 pm ET)
         

      It's astounding (or perhaps not) that only 90 days after leaving the White House, Wallace would be advertised by CBS with the objective, unbiased phrase "political consultant".

      I appreciate Harry Smith challenging Wallace in the clip above. But CBS could have saved big $$ by simply directing viewers to whitehouse.gov instead. Same difference.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (September 29, 2006 1:31 pm ET)
         

      The Bush administraion is just continuing its push to privatize everything formerly done by government. Wallace is now being paid to lie by private enterprise, instead of being paid to lie with our tax dollars.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Buzzramjet (September 29, 2006 1:56 pm ET)
         

      I stopped watching CBS the day after that grinning idiot Couric took over. I'm grateful that someone has the stomach to watch the new rightwing shill station for the Bushpig adminstration, but it's nothing new.

      The newsdirectors no longer are worried about doing actual journalism, but rather news lite and acting as the propaganda arm in the network news arena.

      Faknews has high ratings (for cable) and CBS probably figures the further right they go the better the ratings. One would think after seeing the Grinning Idiots ratings fall like a rock off a cliff they would try doing something positive like actually doing real news and telling the truth like they used to with Bob, Dan, and Walter.

      CBS is now Covering Bush's Shiite.

      It's time to bring back the reversal of allowing to few companies to own all of the news outlets in the U.S. and to bring back the fairness doctrine.

      Ronnie Raygun and Bushpig will go down as the presidents that destroyed America.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mike in seattle (September 29, 2006 3:26 pm ET)
         

      She's hot! ...doesn't know jack about the real world, or how it is to live in a war zone... but she does know how to make BulSHit sound plausible. That's the mark of any good marketer/communications specialist.

      And she's hot. ;)

      Report Abuse
    • Author by corvus (September 29, 2006 4:06 pm ET)
         

      Why watch CBS when you can get the talking points directly from Tony the snow the job?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (September 29, 2006 6:35 pm ET)
         

      With the way things are going in Congress, giving the President the ability to hold Americans without charges and without trial, and continously listening to Bush charging the Media with treason, is it any wonder CBS is hiring a Bush PR person to do "political commentary".

      Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (September 29, 2006 7:45 pm ET)
         

      what's the score on FreeSpeech???

      Report Abuse
    • Author by njguy93 (September 29, 2006 8:55 pm ET)
         

      George Stephanopoulos is supposed to be an objective news host who asks questions to both sides, and has let Republicans slide on numerous falsehoods, as has been documented on a frequent basis by Media Matters. Nicolle Wallace is supposed to be giving an objective analysis when she is clearly not objective. She does not ask questions to both sides. If CBS put billed her as a Republican analyst balanced her out with a Democratic analyst, that would be fair.

      THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com

      Report Abuse
    • Author by sambo (September 30, 2006 12:56 pm ET)
         

      when i seen that i thought george bush had tuned in

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.