Yes, on Sunday Chris Wallace asked this INSULTING question of Michele Bachmann: "Are you a falke?" Michele Bachmann promptly SMAKCED DOWN Wallace by correctly saying she was insulted, and by stating her really impressive resume as a "serious person". Chris Wallace, useless parasite, could only dream of having a resume like that.
In context, it is worse. This blogmany months ago--in 2010--correctly designated Chris Wallace as a partisan political hck. It is standard Wallace technique to try for a "gotcha" moment. That is because Wallace has consistnetly shown himself to be the very eipitome of a modern "journalist", as described by the late Michel Crichton in his fine noevel of ides: "Airframe". The Crhichton thesis is that you have to realize theat themodern "jouurnalist" is NOT INTERESTED in actual information. The modern "journalist" is only interested in his or her narrative, and how that narrative can be advanced by unfariquestins where "information" is the very last thing the "journalist" wants. In the case of Chris Wallace, I would add a corollary: For "journalists" like the despicabvle wallace, it IS all abuot the question The idea is to confront someone with an insutling and/or unfair question, so that the "journalist" can achieve a "gotcha" moment. Who cares if lthe public gets any actuual information. This is all about the "JOURNALIST". It is intended to be all about the "joournalist". It is intended to advance the "career" and EGO of the "journalist". Yes, Chris Wallace, I have notthing but total CONTEMPT for yuo, and have said that in the past (long before your apology for this latest "journalistic" crime).
What, exactly,, did Wallace do, besides the insulting questioin itself.? What he did was take a LIST of supposed "gaffes" made by Michele Bachmann--therby devoting a good part of the interview time to a REHASH of the supposded worst moments of Michele Bacmann over a period of months or years, without rehashing any of her bet oments--and then suggesting that "people" want to know whether Michele Bachmann is a flake. As I said, in context, Wallace was WORSE than the quetion itself suggets. WHO are these "peopple" who want to know whether Michele Bachmann is a flake? Right. They are the people in CHRIS WALLACE'S circle of mainstram media/leftist people who look down on people like Michele Bachmann. The whole purpose of this question was to get Wallace approval from the mainstreaam media type of people. That has also become--to often--the goal of Fox News, which is "cricling the wagons" around Chris Wallace. That is why--after years of criticism--I have finally called for a BOYCOTT of Fox News. Fox News has always been part of the problem, rather than part of the solultioin. But I have come to a final decisioin that the "good" things about Fox News are now FAR outweighted by the bad. How can I calll for a boyctoo of Fox News, whhen I still intend to SURF Fox News on the same basis I now surf CNN, MSNBC and any number of other sources I don't respect? Well, I don't have a problem with you doing what I am doing, so long as you don't regularly watch Fox News, or surf it any more extensively than others. But you don't need to. I will tell you all you need to know. You would be better off listening to Rush Limbaugh and using Drudge for an overview of the news.
What about the "apology"? Well, I saw the Chris Wallace apology, and it confirmed every single bad thing I am saying about him. Yes, Mark Davis, on the Rush Limbaugh program (see yesterday's article: Mark Davis: Certified Idiot) said the "aplogy was sinncer and an abject admission of wrongdoing. lMark Davis is a CERTIFIED IDIOT. The Wallace apology was no such thing.
wallace starts off by sayng that he did not "intend" to "insult" Michele Bachmann. That is a LIE. What else to you call that litany of alleded "miistatements from Wallace, and the obvious INTENT to ask an "in your face" questioin? There is absolutely no doubt that Wallace INTENDED a "gotcha" question. So he is a LIAR, on top of everything else. His istake was a SEXIST istake. He thought he could get away with the over-the-top way he asked the question he INTENDED to upset her. Wallace thought he could get away with it, and that Bachmann could not handle it, because Bachmann is a WOMAN. But Bachmann handled it, and that is the ONLY reason for the Wallace apology. He looked BAD, and he knew it. His problem is that he now loooks WORSE. Yes, Fox should FIRE him, but that would not change my suggeted boycott of Fox News. Instead of firing Wallace, of course, Fox is totaly in COVER UP mode--even going so far as to ADMIT that Fox is NOT FAIR (see yesterday's articles). There is no redeeming Fox after that.
Nope. I am not done with this Wallace "apology". Wallace did say he "messed up", but obviously ONLY referred to his use of the word "flake'. Wallace did NOT apologize for his "gotcha" approach to the questin. l(Mark Davis: BITE ME--it goes without saying you should boycott Mark Davis, on the Rush Limbaugh program or his own radio show in Texas). This was made clear y the disgraceful final part of wallace's "apology", which showed you totallly who and what Wallace is (Michael Crichton would be proud to be vindicated on this level).
Why did Wallace say he asked this question? He said that tis (impression of Michel Bachmann as a falke) was "out there" (in Wallace's circles, and the circles in which he wants approval). Therefore, Wallace wanted to give Bachmann "a chance" (lol) to comment on this incestuous "criticism" of her on the Washington cocktail/social circuit, and in mainstream media circles.
Yes, you understand correctly. What Wallace was doing was ADMITTING--as virtually all of Fox News admitted all day yesterday--that Wllace was pushing the NARRATIVE of the mainstream media--a narrative that is INSULTING to Michele Bachmann. You just do not get any lower than Chris Wallace, unless you are in the mainstream media, or on Fox News. In his apology, Wallace really ADMITTED that he was INTENDING to "insult" Michele Bachmann, and his only regret is that he went over the top i the way he did it. Wallace even said: This has become about the question, which it should not be, since it is the answer that should get the attention.
Did I tell you that Wallace, in the apology, again proved himself a LIAR? If you do not understand anything else, or agree with anything else in this article, know this: Wallace INTENDED it to be all about the questin. He INTENDED to get "credit" for asking a "tough question" which caused Michele Bachmann to cry (or at least melt down in some way). Wallace wants a REPUTATION. It is like a gunslinger in the old West trying to get a reputatioin as a fast gun. That is what "gotcha' questions like this are about, and Wallace knows it. The "apology" made clear that all Wallace regrets is that the question did not work, and that he has been called on it.
"Wait a second," you say. Did not Wallace get in a big FIGHT with leftist Jon Stewart because Wallace tried to get Stewart to admit that Stewart was a leftist activist, and Stewart would not? Or something like that. Yes, but that is IRRELEVANT to this article. What did I just tell you about Wallace? He wants a REPUTATION. A "play" fight with Stewart--a comedian--is an easy way for Wallace to get a reputation (and punch up his ratings). That does not change that his questions of POLITICIANS usually push the mainstream media NARRATIVE, because that is where Wllace wants approval. This means you may get MILD "tough' questions of lefti politician, but not any real stingers. You won't hear Wallace asking a Dmocrat: Do you think Barack Obama was really qualified to be President of the United States." I GUARANTEE you that MORE PEOPLE wonder that than wonder whether Michele Bachmann is a "flake". It is well known, of course, that it is a DISHONEST way to cover BIAS and UNFAIRNESS for a "journalist" to ask a pquetion beginning: "People are saying...." It is even worse to justify a quesstion after the fact on that basis. "People" is often jut a word meaning "I", or "journalists liek me".
Nope. Chris Wallace IS a seixt, leftist, partisan political hack. No, I don't care what he calls himself I would GUESS he calls himself an "independent". So what? He has shown you who and what he is, as I told you LAST SUMMER.
Message to Mark Davis: Forget it. You are either incompetent or dishonest. As far as I am concerned, you are now a non-person.
Message to Rush Limbaugh: FIRE Mark Davis. By that, I mean never let him guet host your program again. No, I will not boycott you just for not taking this advice, but I will lose a little repect for you. I will lose even more respecvt if you come back and pull a Fox News: defending Mark Davis and/or criticizing Michele Bachmann in a way dsigned to bolster the absurd things that Davis said to make this problem about Michele Bachmann rather than about the despicable Chris Wallace.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad yeesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment