We have had to fight back for a lot of years against claims that weâre an arm of the Republican Party. We arenât. Anybody who watches me on âFox News Sundayâ knows that Iâm not.
He really does live in a bubble.
Yea Fox isnât about the Republican party, they are about sexual molesters. Come on people wake up!
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
Sounds like Wallace is trying to ditch the Hannity-OâReilly-Doocy axis and go over to the Shep Smith side.
âI was not just representing myself and my show, but my news organization in a way that I suspect that most of my colleagues at the other debatesâ networks didnât necessarily feel,â Wallace told the LA Times. âI had to do the job that I do and that a lot of my colleagues do everyday, to show people who take the easy way out and just dismiss Fox News and that they donât understand what we do everyday and the kind of journalism we practice.â
Oh, we understand all too well, Chris. Itâs called propaganda in polite circles.
Below are ample reasons for anyone seeking journalists to elucidate their knowledge of the world to skip landing on your channel, Chris.
I was pleasantly surprised by Wallaceâs performance as moderator. But my expectations werenât high.
Of course, he wonât be invited to the Christmas party at the Hannity house this year.
âWe have had to fight back for a lot of years against claims that weâre an arm of the Republican Party.
Well of course, that assertion is completely without merit. Who would think such a thing?
Every sentient person knows the Republican Party is an arm of Fox News.
Are we suppose to find the âone of these things is not like the othersâ on this list?
I think Chris Wallace is attempting to set himself more in the light of his father who was quite a good journalist. I believe Chris has the ability to be good ⌠when he wants to â but heâs crying a little too much here about FOXâs reputation. The reputation that FOX is an arm of the Republican Party is well-deserved and Chris knows it. He may wish it werenât so, but it is. In my opinion, Chris Wallace has a long way to go before he will be known as a serious and fair journalist. Again, he can be good when he wants to but heâs shown himself far too willing to carry buckets of GOP water to be taken too seriously.
All you have to do is tune in on any time of the day and I guarantee within 10 minutes there will be something about Hillaryâs emails.
My wife said that yesterday when everyone of the morning shows were talking about the debate and Donaldâs anti democracy stance, she thought let me flip to Faux and see how they are reacting ?
You guessed it
Wiki Leaks and Hillaryâs emails.
Much ado about a nothingburger
Who ya going to believe Chris or your lyinâ eyes
With all due respect to Mr. Wallace, âdisappointedâ is a word we use with a child when theyâve done something wrong, or when a cake fails to rise, or when your favorite team loses a game. âDisgustedâ or âoutragedâ would have been more fitting in this instance.
Ailesâ complete lack of ethics and integrity should have made his move from Fox Predator and Liar in Chief to HOâs campaign advisor expected and fully in keeping with his lack of character. Neither HO nor Ailes has any respect for the truth.
Seems to me to be a perfect match. Creep on creep action.
I note how in just one inch of consecutive names youâre confronted with:
There is more inane derp in those five names than on the entire staff of any other network in business.
The problem is not so much the journalism Fox practices as it is that the journalism is just a set up for a biased, calculated, ideological spin machine that deliberately intends to deceive and lie.
Fox is not balanced in any sense of the word.
Bullshit. His questions - from abortion to the debt to the supposed scandals of the Clinton Foundation - were framed through a Republican perspective.
Between this and his performance at the debate, I am developing a grudging sense of respect for Wallace. Perhaps heâs finally trying to live up to his fatherâs legacy. Perhaps losing âJabba the Hutâ will actually improve conditions at Faux Snooze, but Iâm not holding my breath. Baby steps, folks.
I donât disagree about the framing of those questions, but I think you could find similar questions from other moderators. Think of the question Lester Holt gave. Wasnât that based on numbers from the same group?
Does this signal that Fox News now wants to be its own entity, not tied to the party of Trump? Do they suspect that Trump News will erode their base of viewers so this is outreach for new viewers?