Chris Wallace Talks about Mainstream Media Bias

[dirty]

"Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace said Friday that since leaving the mainstream networks behind to join Fox he's noticed an "astonishing" amount of biased reporting on the part of his former colleagues.
"I came from the mainstream media and I didn't used to feel this way," Wallace told WRKO Boston radio host Howie Carr.
In radio interviews he does to promote his Sunday broadcast, Wallace said, the questions he gets are almost always slanted against the Bush administration.
"They always ask negative questions about George Bush [like] 'How much trouble is he in? What's this mess in Iraq?'"
"I mean, it's quite astonishing to me."
Wallace said that the success of Fox News is a direct result of bias in the so-called objective press.
"Fox News wouldn't exist if it weren't for this kind of stuff going on in the mainstream media," he told Carr. "That's why people are fed up with that and want the antidote to it because they get it and they've gotten it for years - the so-called bias in the objective press."

 

[xpanda]

Gees.

A. maybe he's pumping up his current employer?
B. if you are going to point out media bias, shouldn't you also point out Fox News bias
C. ALL of your media is biased in more or less the same direction, if you'd just drop the partisan blinders and have a look-see.

 

[Jimmy Hoffa]

NO bias on FOX News. It only seems that way to the uninformed because the masses have been conditioned to think that ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBC is straight news. FOX news reports it straight and that is hard to swallow for the left wing liberal elitists.

 

[dirty]

Damn Jimmy.........................couldn't have been said better myself...

sometimes you never know what is going on til you work for the competition....or in this account a news source that is concerned with reporting the Truth....not the Biased Truth that is reported by the other News Media....




:+drinks-4:+drinks-4

 

[xpanda]

You guys must have forgotten about these:

From: John Moody
Date: 6/2/2003


Heads of state don't leave G-8 meetings early unless they have good reasons. President Bush has two: he has to get to Egypt, and he doesn't like the French. Let's explain to viewers that despite the tepid handshake, Bush and Chirac are far from reconciled, as are the US and Germany. The early departure from Evian should take the sparkle out of the bottled water spa.


From: John Moody
Date: 6/3/2003



The president is doing something that few of his predecessors dared undertake: putting the US case for mideast peace to an Arab summit. It's a distinctly skeptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning are worth noting in our reporting through the day.


From: John Moody
Date: 3/12/2004


For our purposes, as a story, it's very important to know whether ETA or Al Qaeda was responsible for the Madrid bombings. For the victims the distinction is minimal. Terrorism is international, and the United States is the leader of the coalition to stamp it out. That's the tone we want to impart throughout the day. We are beefing up our staffing there and will stay with the story through the weekend.


Scary thought of the day: what if it's a consortium of terrorist groups working together?


Spain's neighbor, the ever-superior France, had its own spate of railway terrorist warnings last week, though it's not clear that those were in any way related to the Madrid bombings.

John Kerry may wish he'd taken off his microphone before trashing the GOP. Though he insists he meant republican "attack squads," his coarse description of his opponents has cast a lurid glow over the campaign.


From: John Moody
Date: 4/4/2004


MONDAY UPDATE: Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force." We won't be among that group.


The continuing carnage in Iraq -- mostly the deaths of seven US troops in Sadr City -- is leaving the American military little choice but to punish perpetrators. When this happens, we should be ready to put in context the events that led to it. More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters last year, assassination of Irai officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: whatever happens, it is richly deserved.


From: John Moody
Date: 4/6/2004


The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers.


For consistency, the town is Ramadi, not Al Ramadi.


"Fierce" is a good word, but let's find a few synonyms.


From: John Moody
Date: 5/5/2004



The president meets Jordan's king abdullah, after a similar visit was postponed last month in a minor diplomatic ruffle. We'll see if the two have anything to say about the Abu Graib situation.


Thursday update: the pictures from Abu Graeb prison are disturbing. They have rightly provoked outrage. Today we have a picture -- aired on Al Arabiya -- of an American hostage being held with a scarf over his eyes, clearly against his will. Who's outraged on his behalf?


It is important that we keep the Abu Graeb situation in perspective. The story is beginning to live on itw own momentum. The facts of the story may develop into the need to do much more in the days ahead. For the moment, however, the focus appears to be changing to finger pointing within the administration and how it plays out as an issue in the presidential campaign.

______________________________________________

Should I go on? There are plenty more.

 

[Jimmy Hoffa]

Not sure what all that is X, could you please qualify it?

However I will say this in regards to the first paragraph, NOBODY likes the french aside from those in the market for white flags.

 

[xpanda]

Senior editor of Fox News. Memos sent to lower-tiered editors and released by an employee last year.

I guess where we differ is that while I stipulate that there is bias at Fox News, I can also concede that there is bias at the others. It amazes me how Fox watchers don't see the bias.

What I DON'T agree with is that these biases are liberal, leftist, conservative, or rightist. They are simply partisan: pro-Democrat or pro-Republican.

As for the French, Bill O'Reilly was on Jon Stewart last night going on and on about the French. What is going on with the French that they are a top item on his itinerary exactly? Simply put, the French are basically non-newsworthy right now, and O'Reilly's love of bashing them is a ratings grab, period. Just like how CNN seems to have been disappointed that their news was limited by Hurricane Rita.

 

[Jimmy Hoffa]

OK, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure as to the source of the quotes. Just as your quotations show higher level manipulation of the news from FOX, didn't we see the same from CBS news higher-ups on the Bush national guard stories that were fabricated during the last election cycle?

The only difference is FOX is the only one that seems to be singled out (not by yourself per your previous post) for bias when ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBC is considered straight.

 

[xpanda]

Well, there is no evidence that CBS purposely fabricated that National Guard story, only that they failed to fully investigate the authenticity of the paperwork they were given. Did they purposely not authenticate? Maybe. But you have in front of you direct and clear evidence that Fox manipulates their news to favour the President and his policies.

As I said, there is more. Lots of anti-French stuff, lots of anti-abortion stuff, etc. These news networks are in a ratings fight, find their target audience and adjust their presentation of the 'news' accordingly. They ALL do it, but Fox and CNN are the worst, simply because of their 24/7 format.

What saddens me about debates in the US is the way they are all boiled down to Repub/Dem, left/right, liberal/conservative rather than on a per-issue basis. IMO this is a very intentional manipulation of politics as it keeps people from seeing that there are indeed few differences between the parties.

But then, I live in a five-party country. Could be why I see things this way.

 

[ZZ CREAM]

.

As for the French, Bill O'Reilly was on Jon Stewart last night going on and on about the French. What is going on with the French that they are a top item on his itinerary exactly? Simply put, the French are basically non-newsworthy right now, and O'Reilly's love of bashing them is a ratings grab, period. Just like how CNN seems to have been disappointed that their news was limited by Hurricane Rita.

I saw that episode with O'Reilly the other night. I was very disappointed in Jon Stewart's kid glove treatment. Too much loving and too little confrontation.

 

[Coast2Coast]

I saw that episode with O'Reilly the other night. I was very disappointed in Jon Stewart's kid glove treatment. Too much loving and too little confrontation.

Yes. Exactly what we need more of in the media...more confrontation. And we wonder why our politics and media are so screwed up with bias and shout shows and confrontation in the halls of Congress and on our tube? Perhaps because people like you keep wanting more of it. I much prefer intellect and reasoned discussion than confrontation. Confrontation is for teenage bullies. Adults should be able to discuss matters without confrontation. Sadly, our media, politics and many Americans like the dysfunctional confrontational approach. If you want more confrontation, buy a ticket to a boxing match.

 

[ZZ CREAM]

Yes. Exactly what we need more of in the media...more confrontation. And we wonder why our politics and media are so screwed up with bias and shout shows and confrontation in the halls of Congress and on our tube? Perhaps because people like you keep wanting more of it. I much prefer intellect and reasoned discussion than confrontation. Confrontation is for teenage bullies. Adults should be able to discuss matters without confrontation. Sadly, our media, politics and many Americans like the dysfunctional confrontational approach. If you want more confrontation, buy a ticket to a boxing match.

I would have agreed with you 20 years ago, back when opposing parties could be civil and still be friends. But that was before Rush became King and twisted everything into a 'the whole world is against us' scenario' where amiability is seen as a sign of defeat. Look at Bush-every time a Democrat sides with him, they will later hold it against them and point it out, how they even agreed with the administration- even when it was a political decision based on the well-being of the country. Yes, politics has always been a brawl, but before Rush and loud-mouthed positions, politicians got along a whole lot more and sometimes even tried to do right, as opposed to Stalinist fall in party lines thinking.

 

[Coast2Coast]

There certainly are plenty of culprits to go around. The rise of Rush was certainly a factor in the networks adopting their own shout shows. And the Bushies, DeLay, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and all who share their attacking methods carry the shout show mentality into the halls of Congress.

The far right and the far left both share the unfortunate disability that they have a greater commitment to their beliefs and principles than to improving America. So many people would rather fight on principle than compromise. More fighting begets little but more fighting. Some of us have to take a stand and say enough. Maybe if more of us insisted that our officials and media practiced decorum rather than disrespect, we'd be better off. Maybe if more of us voted out all those principled ideologues on both spectrums who can't find middle ground with people from the other party, we'd all be better off. Maybe if more of us turned off the Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews and the CNN gang shout shows, they might go away for lack of ratings and we'd be better off. Maybe if more of us turned off the uncivil rantings of Rush and Air America, they too would go away for lack of interest. Things have changed dramatically in public discourse in the last 20 years, but I for one don't accept uncivil behavior in the media and politics as being our permanent fate.

 

[ZZ CREAM]

There certainly are plenty of culprits to go around. The rise of Rush was certainly a factor in the networks adopting their own shout shows. And the Bushies, DeLay, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and all who share their attacking methods carry the shout show mentality into the halls of Congress.

The far right and the far left both share the unfortunate disability that they have a greater commitment to their beliefs and principles than to improving America. So many people would rather fight on principle than compromise. More fighting begets little but more fighting. Some of us have to take a stand and say enough. Maybe if more of us insisted that our officials and media practiced decorum rather than disrespect, we'd be better off. Maybe if more of us voted out all those principled ideologues on both spectrums who can't find middle ground with people from the other party, we'd all be better off. Maybe if more of us turned off the Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews and the CNN gang shout shows, they might go away for lack of ratings and we'd be better off. Maybe if more of us turned off the uncivil rantings of Rush and Air America, they too would go away for lack of interest. Things have changed dramatically in public discourse in the last 20 years, but I for one don't accept uncivil behavior in the media and politics as being our permanent fate.

Well, maybe there is some hope afterall -however slight, I APPLAUD your stand! P.S. BTW, when I said more confrontation, I did not mean to be rude or ill-mannered. What I did mean was to challenge his positions he has stated on his show many times. It was the perfect time to do so because these guys rarely are exposed out of their 'element'! But I never espouse discivility!