Jump to content

Talk:Chris Wallace/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Conservative?

The article describes him as a "conservative journalist" yet offers no supporting details about what makes him conservative.

Likewise, this article offers no supporting details about what makes him a "journalist."

He has been on the air for over thirty years. He has the pedigree to be called a journalist.

Pat Robertson has been on the air for over thirty years. He is not a journalist either.

Pat Robertson has been on the air on his own station. As far as I know, he's never done news anchoring anywhere else. Wallace has held enough different posts in the media, covering news issues and newsmakers to be qualified as such. News anchor, or news reporter might be a better description, but then all TV talking heads including Ted Koppel and Walter Cronkite should never be called journalists either.
This is not evidence. Years of air time do not justify describing someone as a "journalist," otherwise we could just as easily describe Pat Robertson as a journalist for his many years on CBN. Likewise, "pedigree" invokes the idea of bloodlines or breeding, which are clearly unrelated to one's qualification as a journalist. Were that the case, then we may as well describe all of Mike Wallace's offspring as journalists -- an absurd proposition. I would propose that evidence of Chris Wallace's status as a "journalist" be limited to proof that he consistently and objectively reports the facts about current events and other newsworthy items. Given his widely regarded tendency to bias his broadcasts in favor of Republican and Bush Administration views (see main entry), this evidence seems both necessary and short on supply.
that is patent nonsense. Evidence of him beeing a jounalist is lasting employment as such. I don't think this is a matter of doubt. Your criteria of "objectively reporting the facts" US style reporting would exclude most European journalist, since the US idea of journalism is not adhered to here, European journalists rather strive to report the truth and present it in a complete and consistant content, which is a fine but noteworthy difference. Stop beeing americocentric - WP is not the US.

P.S.: for what it's worth - please sign your edits on talk! Wefa 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

who cares? let's not be wiki-geeks, ok?!?

Bill Clinton interview

Since this is obviously a charged topic: I changed "possible efforts" to "efforts" in the next to last paragraph. No one disputes (or disputed in the interview) that Clinton made efforts; what's in dispute is why they were insufficent, comparison to efforts by current President, etc. "Possible" efforts is incorrect, because it calls into question whether efforts were made at all. PaulLev 04:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The text of this passage in our article said that Wallace asked Clinton "a weighted question". I don't know what that means; I'm guessing the editor intended to write "a loaded question", which is POV. The summary of Clinton's defense of his efforts re OBL doesn't really belong in the Wallace article. What's more important in this context is Clinton's allegation of bias, because that's about Wallace, rather than about Clinton or OBL or terrorism or Bush. JamesMLane t c 08:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I did mean "weighted question", which is to say that there was a lot of pretext to the question. A "loaded question" presumes malice and is POV, whereas "weighted" suggests that the answerer needs to address the core question in addition to corollary points. Wallace could of simply asked "Why didn't your administration shut down bin Laden", but instead he asked a question almost to the point of "Why did your administration give aid and comfort to bin Laden by not taking him seriously?" A subtle difference, but one that I hope illustrates the issue at hand. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For factual representation, I think the exact text of Wallace's question should be included. Also to put things in perspective, the comments regarding ABC's documentary on September 11th, which clearly motivated Bill Clinton to make some of the remarks should be discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratulka (talk • contribs)

But that would be speculating. Did Clinton or Wallace specifically mention ABC's film? Dubc0724 15:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Clinton mentioned it in the first few minutes. He said it was purportedly based on the 911 Commission's report, but there were inaccuracies in the ABC docudrama. Wallace replied that the 911 Commission Report pointed out problems in Clinton's response to terrorism. The interview is up on YouTube.PaulLev 17:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As soon as I typed that, I heard a re-broadcast.... my apologies.

Thanks Dubc0724 17:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Guys, I don't like how the article is written. it snips out what clinton was really saying and just makes him look like an angry dick, which he isn't. He said a lot of really good stuff and whoever clipped the text to give a summary of the video did a very poor job IMO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caduceo (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Could the link to Fox news be included which shows the interview in it's entirity therefore eliminating the "youtube clips". also how about the link to the "Youtube clip" that shows Wallace complaining about the ABC clip due to its inaccuracies.[[1]]

Clinton said "a lot of really good stuff" toward correcting the right-wing lies perpetrated by ABC. This article, however, isn't about Clinton, ABC, or the right-wing lies. It's about Chris Wallace. What's relevant for this purpose is Wallace's decision to question Clinton the way he did, and whether there's merit to the charge that his overall conduct of his show has reflected bias. JamesMLane t c 03:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Who are we quoting for your last point, MediaMatters? --kizzle 05:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The criticism was originally made by Clinton, disputed by Wallace, and bolstered by Media Matters. I'd say all those deserve to be mentioned. JamesMLane t c 06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I've asked this several times on various pages with no response: do we have a policy prohibiting links to youtube? --kizzle 05:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure that/why youtube links would be prohibited except for the potential of biased editing, I would think that, in trying to stick to facts, anytime a more complete file is available it should replace a partial or edited file.User:mkarg

This doesn't cite any more defenses of Wallace, only criticisms from left wing groups. For example, Brit Hume noted today on Special Report that Wallace had asked Rumsfeld if the Bush administration did enough before 9/11 on terrorism in 2004. Jonyyeh 05:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of how much detail we want to present on this point. If you follow the link in our article, you'll see that Hume could well have gotten his information from the full Media Matters report of September 24, which discusses the Rumsfeld interview. Here's what Media Matters said in analyzing Wallace's response to Clinton's charge of bias:

In the March 28, 2004, interview with Rumsfeld, Wallace did press him on whether the Department of Defense should have "been thinking more about" terrorism prior to 9-11 and asked him to respond to the "basic charge that, pre-9-11 ... this government, the Bush administration, largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda." Referring to Rumsfeld's testimony before the 9-11 Commission regarding the Defense Department's anti-terrorism efforts, Wallace remarked, "[I]t sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority."

But beyond this exchange, the Fox News Sunday interviews listed above have almost entirely ignored several key questions regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue bin Laden and Al Qaeda. [2]

Thus, I'm not clear on how you want to rewrite the passage. It would be actively misleading for us to suggest that Hume's example was a refutation of the Media Matters research. We could give the full quotation above, which would let the reader know about the example cited by Hume. My feeling, though, is that devoting so much space to the quotation from Media Matters would be excessive. JamesMLane t c 06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well clearly there is a politically motivated group, that is constantly removing factual material. Can we stop such acts? Clearly the reactions in the press has been removed and the relevant question from Wallace has also been removed Pratulka 14:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay the following is idiotic. "In response to Clinton's charge of bias, Wallace said that Fox News Sunday had asked Bush administration officials "plenty of questions" of that sort. Media Matters for America, an organization that focuses on "conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" [2], disputed Wallace's statement. [3] It reviewed "dozens of interviews ... with senior Bush aides" and found only one (a 2004 interview with Donald Rumsfeld) in which Wallace raised the "basic charge that, pre-9-11 ... this government, the Bush administration, largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda". [4] The organization found no interviews in which Wallace or his predecessor, Tony Snow, had asked a Bush administration official about the demotion of Clarke or the lack of response to the Cole bombing." MediaMatters is comparing oranges and tangerines and specifically look at the "demotion of Clarke" or the "Cole bombing." Whereas Wallaces says "questions of the sort." Meaning critical questions about the errors and failures in government due to terrorism. MediaMatters clearly illustrate their love for liberal misinformation. Though I feel this dishonest "research" by MediaMatters is horrible, it should be left in, and an addition paragraph should show where Chris Wallace asked difficult questions on the failures of the government to Bush administration officials with regards to terrorism. 65.83.137.137 17:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Wallace didn't use the phrase "of the sort" -- that was my attempt to characterize the meaning he was conveying, in an exchange in which both men were interrupting each other and referring back to the context already established. Obviously, FNS asked "plenty of questions" of Bush administration people if the phrase refers to all questions. Wallace's response makes no sense unless you assume it was responsive to Clinton's point. Your criticism of Media Matters is inaccurate, as you'll see if you actually read the linked report. Media Matters looked in general for "difficult questions on the failures of the government to Bush administration officials with regards to terrorism" (finding only the one that I mentioned in the version of the text that I wrote), and then went on to look for questions in the specific categories cited by Clinton, including Richard Clarke, the Cole, and attempts to kill bin Laden. JamesMLane t c 20:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you are a little too polictically charged for this. Clinton's point was he didn't like any critical questions on his dealings with combating terrorism. Wallace's point is that he has asked Bush officials critical questions on terrorism. If you fail to see how politically charged Media Matters is, that is your problem, not Wikipedia's. Though I am not calling for them not to be a source or anything. Though I feel you should read this blog which may help you gain some perspective. Regardless, Chris Wallace does indeed do interviews, and often outside of "Fox News Sunday." 65.83.137.137 20:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
If your perception of the matter is that Clinton just didn't like critical questions while Wallace has asked tough questions to the Bush administration, you might want to check your own political leanings. --kizzle 22:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
"Clinton's point was he didn't like any critical questions on his dealings with combating terrorism." What Clinton actually said was, "It was a perfectly legitimate question." As for the blog entry cited by 65.83.137.137, I've read it. The blogger makes a great to-do about finding Wallace's 2004 interview with Rumsfeld. That interview is reported, with a verbatim quotation included, in the version of our article that several editors prefer. Therefore, nothing in this blog entry necessitates any change in that version. JamesMLane t c 05:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Since when is Media Matters a reliable source? Ruthfulbarbarity 18:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Very much of one, bud. If you knew anything about them (and it is clear that you don't), you'd know that all they do is merely prepeat the outrageous words of the far right, who always have the knack for hanging themselves on their own such words. Uncanny. BobCubTAC (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • PLEASE NOTE, This topic in question has no objectivity. A single Brit Hume quote defending Wallace isn't suffice to Wikipedia standards for neutrality, please include the widespread criticism this heavily-edited FOX NEWS interview recieved, or you run the risk of having this page deleted. Please advise when these changes are made. Best, Harry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.31.10 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 April 2009
You have no authority to threaten deletion. Nevertheless, per the above discussion, our article should indeed include a reference to the criticism. I'm restoring that information. JamesMLane t c 03:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Man with the Twisted Lip

Clinton made a typical Bubba mistake when he told Chris Wallace, "You have that smirk on your face." Actually, Wallace's face permanently displays a sardonic smile. This is merely due to the unique configuration of his facial muscles and has nothing to do with his attitude. Clinton would have known this if he had ever watched Wallace on television at any other time.Lestrade 20:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

NPOV in addressing controversial subjects

Diosprometheus made this edit removing the criticism of Wallace, with an ES stating that "it relied on partisan organizations". The edit nevertheless left in Wallace's own opinion, which can fairly be assumed to be biased.

This edit reflects a misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. We should not adopt, as fact, the assertions of Media Matters or of Wallace himself. What we do is to report these positions, with attribution. Thus, although Wallace is (to my mind) quite clearly a shameless liar, it would violate NPOV for us to say so. Instead, we report the competing opinions, with attribution and citation, and let the reader decide.

What? let the reader decide? They are not smart enough to decide! how can opinion ever be controled if we simply provide facts with links and then let the reader decide... that would be like, hmmmm, fair and balanced? ahhhhh mkarg

Therefore, the text removed by Diosprometheus was perfectly proper. I'm restoring it. JamesMLane t c 10:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


The edit nevertheless left in Wallace's own opinion, which can fairly be assumed to be biased. Why can it be "fairly assumed" to be biased? Dubc0724 12:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Wallace is a prominent journalist who was accused of favoring one political party in his supposedly "fair and balanced" reporting. In the statement in question, he is expressing his opinion as to whether his own reporting is balanced. If Media Matters is assumed to be biased on the question of Wallace, then Wallace can be fairly assumed to be biased on the question of Wallace. In any event, for purposes of crafting the article it doesn't matter. Wallace's opinion, whether biased or not, certainly must be included in our article, as long as it's attributed to him and not stated as fact. That's why I left it in. JamesMLane t c 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe your personal feelings add up to an "unfair" assumption of bias, at best, unless there's some documentation of his bias by a party without an axe to grind. Dubc0724 17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That, and the truth. --kizzle 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I pointed out above that the Media Matters report discussed the interview that Hume referred to. Nevertheless, we now have an edit, unaccompanied by any discussion here, that seeks to convey the false impression that Media Matters was hushing up that example, and that Media Matters deserves to be busted for duplicity:

However despite Media Matters claims In 2004, Wallace asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to answer the charge that "the Bush Administration largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda," before 9/11, adding, "Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority."

Given that this page is subject to such constant attempts to spin the record, I've changed my mind about the level of detail we should give. On the other hand, the article about Wallace should give detail about the charge of bias against him, and his response, but doesn't need to go into detail about the substance of Clinton's defense of his administration's record. I think the current text gives too much space to the detail about whether Clinton did enough and not enough space to the detail about whether Wallace and Fox are biased. JamesMLane t c 05:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Describing Media Matters

ChaseMaster now demands, "Prove to me that Media Matters is NOT a left leaning group." That's not how NPOV works. We don't discuss the merits of a subject on the talk page, decide what opinion we prefer, and then state that opinion in the article. What I've done instead is to include a quotation from MMfA's own website, stating that its focus is on conservative misinformation. That's more than enough for this article. Now the question is whether we should amplify the reference to the Howie Carr show by pointing out that Carr is a conservative. JamesMLane t c 17:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see ANYTHING wrong with going into the slant of Media Matters, so I will continue to change this back. --ChaseMaster 18:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
In other words, you will continue to insert your personal opinion. Reference to Wikipedia policies will not change your conduct. Only if we persuade you to change your personal opinion will you stop inserting it.
Your position is indefensible. Unlike you, however, I believe in collaborative editing, so for the moment I'll refrain from reverting your POV warring; instead, I'll wait and see whether anyone else agrees with me and reverts. In the meantime, please use colons to indent your comments, the way I've refactored your comment above. It helps the reader keep track of the conversation. JamesMLane t c 18:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don’t see how it’s indefensible, you can’t classify media matters as a neutral organization because they are not. I think it’s perfectly fair for the reader to know that Media Matters does not have a neutral stance. You’re just a typical liberal who preaches neutrality but never practices it. --ChaseMaster 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Please no personal attacks, especially those that make you look like an ignorant raving ideologue and moron. -- Jibal 14:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't proposed that the article assert MMfA's neutrality, nor do I recall such a proposal by any other editor. To the contrary, the text I wrote, instead of merely asserting a personal opinion, incorporates a verbatim quotation from the organization's website, a quotation that makes clear the group's non-neutrality. Please also note Help:Talk page#Formatting, so I can stop supplying the missing colons, and WP:NPA. JamesMLane t c 18:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Given a conflict, we should use quotations from MediaMatters to describe them rather than any original descriptors given by Wikipedia editors. The same goes the other way, I wouldn't say "right-wing sham of a news organization" appended to every mention of Fox News. --kizzle 20:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that Media Matters isn't biased? And first of all, there is a strong difference between Fox News, (a news media organization) and Media Matters, (a democratic/left watchdog). Not that I'm discounting Media Matters "research" just saying it'd be different if it were a media watchdog, and not a "conservative 'misinformation'" watchdog. Still should be okay to use them as a source. 65.83.137.137 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess we will have to agree to disagree between the quality of Media Matters "research" and Fox "News"; I think both are partisan organizations, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to add a weasel descriptor to either. --kizzle 20:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm perfectly okay with accepting that you have a differing opinion. But I'm willing to bet you don't watch much of Fox News. Like it or not Fox News is a valid news organization. Whereas MediaMatters is a conservative "watchdog" similar to how Media Research Center is a liberal "watchdog." And all I'm questioning about MediaMatter's research is the narrowness of it. They easily list all his interviews as if you are to assume that he never asked any crtical questions ever. Anyway, with all the "blaming" going around I don't fault Clinton or Bush for 9/11. It was simply the failures of both Administrations and government in general. If you really just want to live your life pointing the finger at others (and when I'm saying "you" I'm not singling anybody out) for mistakes made you'll never truly learn anything about life. 65.83.137.137 21:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you'd be quite wrong. Being a liberal myself, I take sick pleasure in watching Brit Hume. I would like to point out, however, that while it is inarguable that Fox News is a valid news organization, it says nothing about the quality of the actual news coming out of that organization. Just because it's on TV and has a large viewership does not in itself mean anything. As for the "narrowness" of MediaMatters, it was to determine the validity of Clinton's point that Wallace did not ask the same questions to this administration. I agree with most of your points, but if you truly believe Fox News is not supportive of the current administration and reflects that in their coverage, then we're going to be talking past each other. As for the utility of pointing fingers at others, I'll leave Theodore Roosevelt with the last word (and cquoted to piss off James):

--kizzle 22:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You people seem to forget, as much as you may not like it Fox News public company like CNN or MSNBC. Where as Media Matters is a left wing watch dog group as self described on its own page. Media Matters funding comes from liberal donors. I see no problem saying a “left-wing leaning organization” as it’s a FACT that’s what it is. I would also see no problem in quoting the Media Research Center as a “ right-wing leaning organization.” --ChaseMaster 03:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I have fixed left leaning orginzation, if you can post "conservative mis-information" which to me is just as politically charged as "left-leaning". I will also change this back every time. If you don't want it, then "conservative mis-information" has to go. --ChaseMaster 11:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You're continuing to focus on defending your opinion about MMfA. Under WP:NPOV, the issue isn't whether your opinion is correct. The issue is that it's your personal opinion and therefore doesn't belong in the article. An attributed quotation to a prominent spokesperson, however, is something that our policies allow us to use. It's an objective fact that Media Matters describes its mission in terms of "conservative misinformation". That quotation tells the reader that the organization makes no claim to neutrality. Also, because it's an attributed quotation, Wikipedia isn't adopting the POV that conservatives spread misinformation. Instead, we're reporting the fact that Media Matters states that opinion. It may seem to you that this distinction is splitting hairs, but it's how Wikipedia has been operating for some years now. JamesMLane t c 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I have changed it to "Progressive" as that’s what they describe them selves as This is important to me because, I think people who don't generally the same passion that we share needs to know the facts. The fact of the matter is that they are a left-leaning organization with an obvious bias. I would expect the same thing for the Media Research Center. SO I changed it to progressive to state there FACTUAL information. --ChaseMaster 19:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It says directly in there "About Us" page they are a "Progressive" organization that is NOT a opinion but a FACT!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaseMaster (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, Media Matters does describe themselves as "progressive". Although I had earlier stupidly removed your edit, I have now sheepishly reverted it.--Hal Raglan 19:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Wallace, not about 9/11

Because the Clinton interview section of this article touches on the touchy subject of 9/11, there's a constant temptation for editors to include information that they think supports their preferred position about who was to blame for the attacks. For purposes of this article, there's no need to recite Clinton's lengthy description of his administration's anti-terrorism efforts. Similarly, if we include Republican talking points about Clarke, then we'd have to include similar Democratic points, such as how Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts were often criticized or thwarted by the Republicans in Congress, or how the Bush team thought that Clinton had an "obsession" with bin Laden.

Because ChaseMaster argued that Clarke wasn't actually demoted, I changed the reference to his "demotion" so that it said only his "treatment", which is broad enough to encompass both opinions. If the point is disputed, then we certainly shouldn't assert one side's view as a fact. Nevertheless, there's no reason for this article to go off on a tangent about the details of Clarke's career. If Wallace, or some prominent spokesperson for his side, addresses the specific charge of bias by advancing an argument about what happened to Clarke, then that opinion would be relevant. JamesMLane t c 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For the reasons stated above, I disagree with this edit by ChaseMaster, which added anti-Clinton material that's not relevant to Chris Wallace. I also disagree with this edit by an anon, which added pro-Clinton material that's just as irrelevant. (At least ChaseMaster and I agree on something, in that s/he reverted the latter edit.) Neither this article nor this talk page is the right place for a debate about whether Clinton did a good job on the al-Qaeda issue. JamesMLane t c 07:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have re-edited my stance. I took out one line, however I believe a large portion of it should stay. The article was about the interview. The article also shows the questions asked by Wallace may not have been partisan. --ChaseMaster 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The issue of partisanship isn't over whether Wallace's questions to Clinton were legitimate, but rather whether Wallace had pursued the Bush administration with the same vigor. Therefore, it's too tangential to the Wallace article to get into the pros and cons of Clinton's anti-terrorism actions over the course of his eight years in office. JamesMLane t c 16:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This section is getting waaay out of hand, do we need these last several paragraphs? --kizzle 18:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes we need the last several paragraphs. The article is not just about Wallace and portraying him as a hit man for the right. The section of the article being edited is about a particular interview between Wallace and former president Clinton. The historical record of the interview, its contents, its interpretation, and the factual basis of what was said in the interview is entirely relevant. Okay then, I'll make another wikipedia entry on the interview itself, since it's historical and newsworthy in itself, if it will make you feel any better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliandroms (talk • contribs) 19:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Olbermann commentary

Olbermann's special comment runs ten and a half minutes. Near the beginning he refers to Wallace as "a monkey posing as a newscaster", and he gets off a couple other shots at Fox News later. Overall, though, his commentary is much more about Bush and Clinton than it is about Wallace. I don't think that the "monkey" remark adds enough to the reader's understanding of the article subject to be worth quoting verbatim or including as an ext link.

One possible alternative would be to cite the Olbermann comment and some comparable right-wing comment as supporting sources for a generalization along the lines of "Wallace's conduct of the interview was strongly praised by some journalists [link] but sharply criticized by others [link]." My inclination, though, is to just delete both the ext link and the text sentence about Olbermann. JamesMLane t c 08:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the line and the external link about Oblermann, as entertaining as it is to wach lefties self destruct. The rant was more about Bush then Wallace. So any refrence to the rant would belong on Oblermanns page. --ChaseMaster 15:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bill Clinton section way too long

I must reiterate my concern that this section is growing way out of proportion. Not only that, but my co-editors here have taken it upon themselves to add several long paragraphs discussing the veracity of Clinton's statements. I do not think these belong here on Wallace's bio, maybe if we create a daughter article then the material would belong. If you guys still disagree, I have a whole bunch of "fact-checking" I can add to "clarify" Clinton's point that the administration did nothing for 8 months before, I'd just prefer that this page sticks to Wallace rather than turn into a page dedicated towards one interview, unless, of course, we move this to a daughter article. --kizzle 01:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You said: "I have a whole bunch of 'fact-checking' I can add to 'clarify' Clinton's point that the administration did nothing for 8 months before." I presume that you are speaking of the Bush administration "doing nothing" for 8 months. At no point in the Clinton-Wallace interview does anyone allege that the Bush administration did anything over and above what the CLinton white house did. So, you could certainly add it in, but it's rather irrelvant. However, when discussing a now infamous interview between Wallace and Clinton, it is certainly relevant to speak of who said what, and to provide a factual analysis in case either of the two parties said something that may have been factually incorrect. Wallace gets criticized for asking what many perceive as a rude question, Clinton gets crtiticised for providing a less-than-straightforward answer to Wallace's question, which is perhaps a good reason why Wallace should have asked his question in the first place. SOunds fine to me.

The whole thing is irrelevant. The only reason there's a section on here about Clinton at all is that Clinton attacked his journalist neutrality. Without that, it should just be one name in a list of notable Wallace has interviewed. This article should not be in the business of assessing the truth of answers of all his notable interviewees. His answer to the substance of the question is no more notable than anyone else's for the purposes of this article. That material, if important, should go in articles about those subjects. This article is about Wallace the journalist. If someone attacks his journalism, that's relevant. If someone lies to him in an interview, that's not. Feel free to add whatever spew you've got to articles that are actually about terrorism policy, but that's not a battle to fight here. Derex 03:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Amen. If this was a daughter article than I wouldn't mind the info being included, but frankly this does not belong on Wallace's bio page. --kizzle 04:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be included. It explains why Clinton blew his top, which had little to do with Wallace being unfair with him and everything to do with Clinton not wanting to answer the question.

Derex, You're committed to neutrality? Are you kidding me? Is that why you haven't deleted the portion of Chris Wallace's article that quotes "Media Matters" that oh-so-unbiased news source? And what about the characterization that Chris Wallace expresses "bias" in asking Clinton the one question almonst everyone in this country wants to ask him? The most obvious question that anyone could possibly ask? And then to allow Media Matters to characterize him as biased because they (in thier allegedly comprehensive review of "dozens" of interviews occuring on Fox News) found only one example where a high level democrat was asked an analogous question? And guess who conducted that interview? Why, Chris Wallace. So, how does this even prove Media Matters' allegation that Chris Wallace is "biased"? Number of high-level republican politians asked by Chris Wallace about failures to get Bin Laden: 1. Number of high-level democratic politicians asked by Chris Wallace about failures to get Bin Laden: 1. Media matters just adds the word "only" before the "one republican" and you all report it like it's objective news. Garbage. Complete garbage. Not that Wallace necessarily should give equal attention either. The failures of the Bush administration have been exhaustively treated in the press. The public is much less informed about what happened 15 years ago. And now you're going to tell me that criticisms of Clinton's *response* to the question that brought all this controversy on Wallace is off limits. No way. It's going back in. juliandroms

I have no time or inclination to read rants. So, I'll just respond to the first sentence. Yes, I am committed to neutrality. I have told you repeatedly that the material you want to address is fine per se. I have also told you that you need to put it in the right article. Articles that are actually about the substance of his comments. It reminds me of some joker trying to fight the whole damn global warming controversy again over on An Inconvenient Truth. He finally got shut down, because it was obviously idiotic when we had articles on the topic. Not the place for it, get it in the right place, and then you can add a wikilink to it from here. This article is about CHRIS WALLACE, journalist. I've nothing more to say on the matter, but you can look forward to me editing this article in accordance with that rather obvious fact. Derex 20:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not going to read what I wrote because it's correct and you have no response. So let me guess. You believe that a "Criticisms" section in "An inconvenient truth" detailing many of the exaggerations included in the film is out of bounds. But a similar "criticisms" section in ABC's new film about 9/11 must be included by necessity. Bzzt. Wrong. This article is about Chris Wallace, and it now includes a section on what has become his most famous interview where he exchanges with the former president. juliandroms

Funny, I don't recall ever reading or editing anything about that 9/11 film here. And yes, I think that scientific disputes belong in scientific article. The AIT article can simply link to those very nicely with a note that so-and-so disagree that the film has a valid scientific basis. I have nothing further to say except this in an article about CHRIS WALLACE. You are also in danger of violating the 7RR. I'd avise against that.

Derex 21:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean he violated 3RR twice and should be blocked. The same principle applies to Ann Coulter's article, despite her advocating intelligent design, which is laughed off in the scientific community, we don't spend paragraphs detailing the (in)validity of intelligent design on Coulter's bio page, but rather on the ID pages. It's not an issue of partisanship here, it just simply does not make sense to use the level of detail you propose on someone who isn't even the subject of this article. --kizzle 23:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes he should be. But, I'm just too nice to report him, especially when I've got 4 of my own. ;) Derex 23:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Made changes to the quotes from "Media Matters." In keeping with NPOV, it's not essential to say whether Media Matters believes Wallace is or is not impartial (that would be their opinion, not established fact). Nor is it useful to suggest that Wallace had asked "only one" senior Bush administration about failures to capture Bin Laden, because so far as we know, he only asked "only one" senior Bush administration member and "only one" senior Clinton official. So I just stated that there was one other instance documented by MM where Wallace interviewed a senior Bush official (Donald Rumsfeld) and left it at that. The reader can decide for themselves whether haveing asked one republican and one democrat constitutes bias on Wallace's part juliandroms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliandroms (talk • contribs)

If you type 4 tildes ~~~~, then your sig gets added with a timestamp. That makes it easier to follow the discussion. Derex 05:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Juliandroms 05:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You really need to review WP:NPOV. Note in particular this passage:

In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.

But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

In this instance, Media Matters is a prominent representative of one POV. Media Matters takes the position that Wallace has shown bias by asking the general question in his only interview with Clinton, while never having asked it of Rice, Cheney, Hadley, or Card. Media Matters also takes the position that Wallace has shown bias by raising the subject of the Cole with Clinton after never having raised it in any of his interviews with Bush administration people. We aren't adopting or endorsing those opinions by Media Matters. We're reporting them. Pursuant to the NPOV policy, we're reporting who holds the opinion and we're reporting the stated reasons behind the views.
Your edit mangles the presentation. Your personal opinion is that, because Wallace asked one Republican (Rumsfeld) and one Democrat (Clinton) a general question about why more wasn't done about al-Qaeda, that shows that Wallace isn't biased. You're entitled to your opinion, but we aren't going to suppress the Media Matters opinion just because you think it's unsupported by the facts. There is a significant body of opinion that finds bias here, because Wallace had many more opportunities to ask Republicans, because he let Rice et al. off the hook completely, and because he never raised the Cole with the people who had the meaningful chance to respond to it. I personally agree with Media Matters that these comparisons are useful, your opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.
Furthermore, I hope you see from WP:NPOV what's wrong with this observation: "In keeping with NPOV, it's not essential to say whether Media Matters believes Wallace is or is not impartial (that would be their opinion, not established fact)." To say that Media Matters thinks that is a fact -- it's a fact about an opinion, which the policy says should be included.
Of course, my personal opinion, like yours, is no basis for excluding a significant contrary opinion. There may be some prominent right-wing spokesperson out there (Rush Limbaugh or his ilk) who has made the argument that Wallace, having queried Rumsfeld and Clinton as he did, thereby showed his magnificent impartiality and his superb journalistic skills. That would be far from the silliest thing Limbaugh ever said, so it's not at all implausible. If some such prominent spokesperson expresses some such opinion, feel free to include it, with attribution and citation. JamesMLane t c 08:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You're not "surpressing an opinion" by excluding a tendentious, unreliable source.
The opinion of Media Matters as to the Wallace-Clinton affair is no more consequential or pertinent than the opinion of the DNC, or George Soros, so I don't see how you can insist upon its inclusion in this article, much less the heavily-biased attempt at portraying its spin as authoritative. Ruthfulbarbarity 18:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
As to whether to include opinions, I refer you to this passage from Wikipedia's NPOV policy:

But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

Media Matters, the DNC, and George Soros are prominent representatives, as are such tendentious, unreliable right-wing spin artists as Brit Hume and his ilk. (In fact, if you look at the George Soros article, you'll see the inclusion of criticisms from Dennis Hastert and Bernard Goldberg, whom no sensible person could consider unbiased.) Therefore, it's proper to include the POVs of Media Matters and Brit Hume, each attributed to its source and therefore being reported rather than adopted.
I agree with you that we shouldn't portray spin as authoritative. That principle would be violated if we said something like, "Wallace is biased in favor of the Bush administration", and then supported the statement with a citation to the Media Matters analysis. We haven't done that. On the other hand, the article as it now stands does violate NPOV by portraying Hume's spin as authoritative, through use of the word "noted" (implying fact). We could balance out the NPOV violations by changing the preceding paragraph to read, "Media Matters noted that there were no interviews in which Wallace or his predecessor, Tony Snow, had asked a Bush administration official about the treatment of Clarke or about the lack of response to the Cole bombing." Of course, the better approach is to report both positions without implying that either is correct.
Incidentally, there's a good argument to be made that my assessment is too harsh on Media Matters. That neither Wallace nor Snow ever asked any such question is a matter of fact, not opinion. None of the critics of Media Matters have provided a single citation to refute what the group reported. Returning to the NPOV policy:

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

I think I'm being pretty charitable toward Chris Wallace and Faux News by going along with the idea that there's a serious dispute about this point, given the absence of any citation to the contrary, but I'm willing to make that compromise in the interest of getting this article into stable form. JamesMLane t c 21:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the concise reply.
My point isn't that opinion should be excluded per se.
I was only asking why the tendentious opinion of Media Matters, an avowedly partisan, admittedly biased political organization, should take precedence over independent, impartial media analysis.
If the criticism of Wallace emanated from the Poynter Institute, or some equally reputable organization that monitors American journalism-and which has the credentials and standing to critique perceived flaws in a particular reporter or news anchor's methodology-then I could understand its inclusion in the article.
But I do not see how the criticism by a Soros-funded dispenser of Dem. talking points, one of which, i.e. that Richard Clarke was demoted or penalized by the Bush administration, is patently false, fits into the context of Chris Wallace's interview of former President Clinton. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
NPOV policy says "cite a prominent representative". Media Matters is prominent. If you think there's a better source to cite for this view, please give us the link so we can consider it as a possible replacement for Media Matters. JamesMLane t c 02:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Media Matters is not prominent... it's a weblog on the Internet. It hasn't spawned any level of notability in relation to the interview itself... at least not on a widespread view. Their opinions do not matter in this article, because they are not a notable party in the interview. We are not a mouthpiece for them - I'm sick and tired of seeing their opinion plastered all over Wikipedia... we aren't here to spread their opinion. It's not notable in this article. --Mrmiscellanious 22:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody said it. Media Matters is a special interest group. All the wikilawyering in the world won't change that. Dubc0724 15:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:RS, notable, reputable, and verifiable sources are the key, not partisanship. Also, the mere status of being a blog does not in itself justify exclusion from Wikipedia; what about LGF or Wonkette? --kizzle 22:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Media Matters isn't being cited here for some statement like "Fox so-called News is a disgrace to journalism." Instead, the statement is a simple factual report: The FNS anchors never asked any Bush administration person about the Cole, they never asked any Bush administration person about Clarke, and the only time out of dozens of interviews that they asked any Bush administration person any question remotely critical of the handling of terrorism was the single Rumsfeld interview noted in the Media Matters report. Those statements are matters of fact, not opinion. This talk page is full of right-wing blah blah blah attacking Media Matters, but there hasn't been one single citation of a fact that would contradict the report. Media Matters identified the FNS interviews it surveyed. With all the time and energy that's been devoted to smearing Media Matters on this page, surely someone could have taken a moment to cite an occasion when FNS pressed the Bush people on this issue -- if there were any. The absence of such a simple refutation speaks volumes, as does Hume's failure to offer such evidence. Whether Media Matters would be worth citing for an assessment of whether Fox News is biased is another question (I think it would be), but here, we're citing a simple report. JamesMLane t c 23:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Placement of quotation from Rumsfeld interview

There are several reasons to place the quotation from the Rumsfeld interview in the paragraph about the Media Matters report, which cited it.

1. Chronologically, Media Matters cited it before Hume did. The Media Matters report was issued on September 24. Hume made his comments on September 26.
2. To omit the quotation from the account of the Media Matters report, and then quote it in full only in Hume's purported rebuttal, gives the impression that Hume caught Media Matters omitting relevant evidence to make its case. For example, this edit by Juliandroms said that Hume's response "noted that, given that Wallace had asked Donald Rumsfeld similar questions to those which he posed to Clinton, a charge of bias is unwarranted...." The reader may conclude that the charge is unwarranted but shouldn't be given the impression that Hume was the first one to quote the Rumsfeld interview. All the language quoted by Hume was in the Media Matters report two days earlier.
3. Hume's "interpretation" is at best questionable. It includes his reference to "Mr. Clinton's assertion that Wallace did not challenge the Bush administration's pre-9/11 record on terrorism". I don't agree that Clinton made any such assertion. According to the full transcript as posted by Fox News itself, Clinton asked whether Wallace had asked any Bush people about terrorism in general. Then he mentioned the Cole. Then he mentioned Clarke. Only then did he say, "I don't believe you asked them that." Wallace seemed to interpret Clinton's statement as referring to the question about the Cole -- which, indeed, had not (and still has not) been posed by Fox News Sunday to anyone in the Bush Administration. If we were to include Hume's dubious interpretation of what Clinton said, then, to avoid misleading the reader, we'd have to include a contrary interpretation, or quote that part of the Clinton interview transcript verbatim. All of that would relate to the credibility of Media Matters, of Clinton, and/or of Hume, but not Wallace. Therefore, in the Wallace article, it's better to simply quote his grilling of Rumsfeld, and note that Hume cited that interview in disputing the charge that Wallace was biased. JamesMLane t c 17:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The pre-9/11 record on combating terrorism during the Bush administration subsumes the period of time where the Bush response to the Cole bombing would have occurred. So in essense, Rumsfeld was being asked the same question that Clinton alleged that Wallace never did ask of a senior Bush official. Notwithstanding, parse words all you want, but Clinton was in fact accusing Wallace of bias. The response from Brit Hume is just quoting the exact same passage as Media Matters, except rather than prefacing it with the word "only", it's presented as a counterexample to the allegation that Wallace is biased. FYI Wallace is widely known as a fair reporter among the Fox News staff.75.46.170.198 20:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Media Matters cited the Rumsfeld interview in the course of its argument that Wallace is biased. Hume cited the Rumsfeld interview in the course of his argument that Wallace is not biased. The wording I reverted to reports each of these opinions, attributes each opinion to its source, and notes that each source thought that the historical data supported its/his position.
Some readers will agree with Media Matters that Wallace's asking only one such question, in the course of dozens of interviews of Bush Administration officials, shows his bias. Other readers will agree with Hume that Wallace's asking the question once of a Democrat and once of a Republican shows his fairness. It's not our job to tell the readers which of those conclusions to adopt. We should present the facts along with notable opinions. The wording I reverted to does that. There's no significant information about Wallace that's removed by my reversion. JamesMLane t c 02:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Except you cut out the part of Hume's argument, where he says that his interpretation of Wallace having asked Rumsfeld a similar question is that he is not biased. I'm saying, include both interpretations of this fact. The way it reads not, it only includes one interpretation.
I thought that Hume's spin was obvious from the context, but if you think it isn't, we can certainly spell it out. I checked back to Hume's piece and he didn't use the word "biased". He did, however, refer to the famous Fox News/Al Franken slogan "Fair and Balanced", so I used the word "fair" instead of your "not biased". Does the rewritten language meet your objection? JamesMLane t c 04:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikimachy

Kacela is determined to denigrate Chris Wallace. JamesMLane seems to be just as determined to keep the article objective. Who will triumph?Lestrade 23:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Let's not look at it in terms of "triumph". I've left a note for Kacela (who's a new contributor) explaining how WP:NPOV restricts what we can say about yellow journalists like Wallace. I hope we can work it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMLane (talk • contribs) 01:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

ATTN: Badagnani, PLEASE indicate why you deleted additions to this page that are factual and accurate. If you don't have objectivity, perhaps you shouldn't be editing the page of a controversial and lambasted journalist. Please advise. -Harold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.190.106 (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Republican candidates' debate

Does this section belong here? The previous section talks about whether or not he grills Democrats and not Republicans, but Ron Paul is someone that few people in the media have taken seriously at all and is not apart of the Bush administration (which Clinton says Wallace leaves unchallenged) so asking him a tough question isn't any evidence to the contrary. 24.196.146.119 (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias In Journalism

The truth is that all manner of journalistic activities are biased. In Europe this is not a problem; for instance both the Guardian and the Economist make no bones about their political and social biases, and both attempt to report issues to the best of their ability. We live under a delusion in the United States that our journalists are supposed to be "objective." This does not exist and never will exist; the main problem is that the centrist MSM and the conservative Fox network do not admit to their bias. The Nation and dailykos.com, for example, are certainly liberal and admit it, while freerepublic.com is certainly conservative and admits it. This is the way it should be - if you want to start up a journalistic endeavor that attempts to be "objective" go right ahead, but I believe that will prove very difficult, and you'll probably end up in the trap of the MSM, which tries so hard to prove itself untainted by the supposed "liberal bias" in the media that it ends up being mostly worthless as a place to get informed and insightful reporting. This effect actually makes the MSM less credible - stating one's biases openly is a good foundation for honesty.

Fox News is conservative, period. Brit Hume is a conservative journalist, period. It's what they are and what he does.

To be a journalist, one must work at journalism. Fox News is not a journalistic endeavor. It is a rightwing psyops organization that dissiminates propaganda. Brit Hume is a propagandist. Chris Wallace is a propagandist.

The sky is blue as well. To shrink from admitting that in their wiki articles is shrinking from any encyclopedia's responsibility to describe things for what they are, accurately. If Fox News wishes to maintain the public fiction that their reporting is fair and balanced, that's their business. But just because someone maintains the position that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it does not make it so, and to remove accurate assessment and acknowledgment of that bias from wiki articles does a disservice to all of Wikipedia.PJtP 16:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel better now with your unsourced venting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.17.241 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, a long-winded essay, but completely off topic. Most of what said is true, especially the part of about the "objectivity" from both conservatives and liberals. However, none of it explains Wallace and whether he is "liberal" or "conservative".--Getaway 14:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry people, I know Fox News, these people are not propagandists they are professionals. Now, CNN and MSNBC are quite a different story. 24.185.239.25 (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

I was reading this article after watching the Clinton interview, and came across a section that seemed fairly redundant. In reviewing the talk page, this is clearly a controversial article with lots of allegations of bias, so I thought before any editing I should put it here up for thought and comment. Anyway, the two paragraphs in question are the Media Matters one about Wallace's statement and interview of Rumsfeld, followed by Brit Hume's response which basically repeats exactly the same information, with the addition of a verbal pat on the back for Wallace. Two paragraphs saying the same thing seems unnecessary to me. I would suggest rewriting it as follows:

Wallace's statement was disputed by Media Matters for America, a media watchdog organization that critizes what it describes as "conservative misinformation in the U.S. media". CITE. The organization found no interviews in which Wallace or his predecessor, Tony Snow, had asked a Bush administration official about the treatment of Clarke or about the lack of response to the Cole bombing. As to the Al Qaeda and the war on terror generally, the Media Matters report stated that Wallace had challenged only one Bush administration official, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, about the war on terror and a perceived failure to pursue the treat of Al Qaeda, by saying, "Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority." CITE. Brit Hume of Fox News cited the same interview as evidence of Wallace's independent reporting. CITE.

Just a suggestion to try to tighten this up and reduce some of the opportunities for POV. croll (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is reasonable. Nevertheless, we've faced a constant attempt to suppress the information presented by Media Matters for America -- not that, in two years, anyone has ever been able to point to the slightest inaccuracy in the MMfA summary of the published FNS transcripts, but that hasn't stopped them from trying to remove the data by screaming "bias". Therefore, instead of your accurate statement that MMfA "found no interviews", I've use the wording "the organization stated that", to make even more clear that we're merely reporting the MMfA position. For this purpose, alleged bias doesn't matter, because WP:NPOV calls for articles to report facts about opinions. JamesMLane t c 04:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, so I've apparently bumbled into a bee's nest by editing the Clinton interview section before seeing the talk page. Don't worry, all I really did was eliminate some more redundancy by taking out words dwelling on the Richard Clarke and USS Cole thing. According to this section itself, Wallace didn't contradict Clinton on whether he'd asked about Clarke or the Cole so it seemed misled to try to take up that as an issue. Also, the section is a bit long and really has the appearance of a small beef that someone had with Wallace and spilled lots of ink on his Wikipedia page for it. I don't know about the larger issues but the Clarke & Cole stuff did seem redundant to a normal reader.

I did change some other wording but I swear only to improve flow and reduce verbosity. If you have any issue with it, please change it back. Sorry if I disturbed any delicate balance you've all worked so hard to achieve.

Goodbye and all the best, Qwerty0 (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chris Wallace/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Wow,lefties are alow in charge of wikipedia now. Fox news is probably the last step for world domination.

Last edited at 13:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 14:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Material about not responding to 20,000 emails

I have removed this non event. If it is such a huge deal, doubtful, add it to the CAP article. --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

When Source X provides information about Subject Y, the information belongs in the article about Subject Y, not the one about Source X. Here, CAP is providing the information about Wallace.
Whether or not it would be a "huge deal" in isolation, it's clear that the Clinton interview (which gets its own subsection) is an important part of Wallace's bio. Out of all the interviews he's done, this one has been highlighted in the article for almost four years; see this version, which also includes the Rice information. The part about Rice becomes important because it relates to Wallace's own statements about the Clinton interview. JamesMLane t c 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This is still a non event. A partisan advocacy group emails are ignored? Was this covered by sources other than themselves? It's also OR/synthesis to then say, he got the emails but ignored them, see, look at the transcript. Again, has any other sourced brought up this "story"? --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You're ignoring the entire connection to the Clinton interview. Wallace himself stated that his questions to Clinton were prompted by emailed requests, thus making the emails relevant here. JamesMLane t c 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my question about other sources. Have you even read the thinkprogress blog post? I am really afraid that your hostility is getting in the way of "fair" editing. Why can't we treat this article the way we would Obama's? --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
To my mind, "hostility" is exhibited by, for example, asking another editor, "Are you really that brain dead?" [10] Here, I didn't say anything about your brain activity or possible lack thereof; I merely pointed out that this particular comment of yours was erroneous in that it ignored the context of the incident. As for your question about whether I've even read the ThinkProgress source cited in my edit, the answer is that yes, I did -- what makes you think I might not have? Finally, we treat this article like Obama's in the sense that both are to conform to NPOV and other Wikipedia policies, but there are differences. Obama is involved in so many matters of consequence that we can't cover them all in his bio article. That's why there are several daughter articles. Even the silliness about Obama's birth has its own daughter article. The threshold of notability for getting something into the main Obama article is higher than that for getting something into the main (and only) Wallace article. If your question means that the threshold should be the same for both, then the Obama article will quickly grow to preposterous length. JamesMLane t c 00:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe try rereading it. Also, it's a blog posting? Do you have any other sources that are really reliable? Also, nice spin to deny your admitted hostility and talk about my behavior. Edit warring over including a blog post about a non event says it all, IMHO. --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "blog posting" conjures up some crackpot in his attic writing whatever he feels like, which is why Wikipedia generally doesn't rely on self-published sources. ThinkProgress, however, has staffers and an editor -- see listing here -- so, for our purposes, it's really more of an online magazine. As for my "admitted hostility", I always try to follow the advice of St. Augustine: "Love men. Slay errors." So, yes, I am hostile to errors, to bias, to sloppy thought, and to misplaced hyphens. As Barry Goldwater didn't say, hostility in the defense of accuracy is no vice. What is a vice is hostility toward other editors, as exemplified by your "brain dead" crack. Some of us consider this distinction important. JamesMLane t c 04:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Have you reread the link? Do you have any other source, other than this blog whose writers are not notable?--Threeafterthree (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)ps, you forgot your hostility to the right wing.--Threeafterthree (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
This section contains a fair amount of orginal research, so much so that to remove it would remove most of the section. FNC sources are being used for most of the evidence against Wallace, ergo, the section is using Wallace's own words/actions against him with very little third party reporting on the issue. This is the very defintion of original research. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thinkprogress material

The recently added material from Thinkprogress should be removed, as it is sourced to a blog. It has nothing to do with whether the site is partisan or not or whether the actual audio is on the website. Blogs of news organizations are allowed, per WP:IRS, but the Center for American Progress is not a news organization. If you want to add the material, find a reliable source that discusses the matter. Drrll (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Have main stream reliable sources covered this? --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think removal of this page misses the point on the need for reliable sources. Reliable sources are necessary for the reason you don't want a group or person with an ax to grind to make up something about a group or a person. Fine, I understand that. But, when that person or group has the exact audio of that conversation then that is definitive proof that conversation happened. It is silly then to argue about how reliable a source is when that conversation is recorded in audio.

It misses the whole point of need for relaible sources, it is not for the sake of needing reliable sources but as evidence or proof that a certain statement or fact is in fact, correct. Well, the audio did exactly that, other than if someone is going to argue that ThinkProgress hired actors to play the roles of Gallagher and Wallace, which would make them the greatest voice actors living today. If a journalist doesn't trust a source but the source gives them the exact audio of a conversation, he wouldn't throw away the audio because of the source. It is as if people in here are more concerned about rules for the sake of rules, then actually looking at evidence and judging it when it obviously shows that conversation happened. 4 Octorber 2010([User:70.92.3.193]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.3.193 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt the veracity of the recording. It's just that Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources, not that the Thinkprogress blog technically doesn't fit the rules. If it matters enough to be covered in this WP article, then it is likely covered by some reliable source. If you find one, I won't object to the material being included. Drrll (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Chris Wallace's mother and Mike Wallace's first wife.

There is a discrepancy between the name of Chris Wallace's mother "Kaplan" and the name of Mike Wallace's first wife "Kaphan",listed on his Mike Wallace's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.99.149 (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

New York Times Obit for Chris Wallace's stepfather says "Kaphan". I am undoing the unsourced edit revision 323375280 of 00:03, 2 November 2009 by 75.99.3.234 and adding reference citation. --Lent (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Heritage

Chris Wallace is the son of legendary journalist Mike Wallace. Wallace's father, Myron Leon "Mike" Wallace, whose family's surname was originally Wallechinsky, was born in Brookline, Massachusetts, to Russian Jewish parents Zina (Sharfman) and Frank Wallace, a wholesaler grocer and insurance broker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.28.127 (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

SCUD incident: Undue weight?

I've added a requested citation for the 1991 Gulf War incident, where Koppel admonished Wallace for revealing the location of a SCUD missile hit on Tel Aviv too precisely. I could find very little coverage of this incident (although articles from 1991 are not as easily available). I'm concerned that this might constitute undue weight. GabrielF (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


Chris Wallace (journalist) → Chris Wallace – Like Brian Williams, is primary topic. More recognizable than the others combined. 11,500 views vs 1400, 243 58. Christopher : 371. Marcus Qwertyus 03:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Wallace/Archive_1&oldid=1136611398"