Fox’s Chris Wallace has always been an insufferable, know-it-all snob, willing to attack Trump as if he (Wallace) were free of bias. This from an early Wallace confrontation with a Trump spokesperson. They have gotten even better since then, at hitting back. That is why Wallace is so peeved.
But it wasn’t so obvious until Fox came under its “new management” ( the Murdoch ‘Liberal Boys”). Then, Chris was able to come into “his own”…that is, free to ‘show his ass’…which he has done so admirably for the past several months.
This past weekend, though, Wallace really gave viewers a good look at just how unbearable he has become!:
Chris Wallace: “I have to say that if Kayleigh McEnany had told Sam Donaldson and me what questions we should ask, that would not have gone well…”
The quote above is from a “discussion” Chris was having with his “panel”, which included the “Super Snide” , Never Trumper, Jonah Goldberg (and the easily ignorable, Mara Liasson, of PBS ‘fame’).
Chris wanted to remind his shrinking readership of what a ‘tough guy’ he was as a White House correspondent…apparently believing a comparison of himself to the annoying Sam Donaldson was self-flattering.
What really riled Chris and Jonah was when reporters were badgering McEnany about the ‘rebellious’ churches which, in some states were defying their governors’ orders to remain ‘locked down”.
McEnany responded by wondering aloud why the media seemed so against reopening churches, while bars, restaurants, marijuana shops, etc, were considered “essential” and permitted to operate? Why did reporters never ask those questions?
Well! Chris and Jonah were outraged at the press secretary…”the very ‘cheekiness’ of her to ‘question the religious beliefs of the press corps’!
The very idea of “telling reporters what questions they should ask”!!!
Wellsir, Chris Wallace is way too ‘tough a guy” to tolerate that!
We say, Kaleigh…YOU GO GIRL!!!! dlh
GOOD FOR THEM (the NY Post)! (via The Right Scoop)
The NY Post Editorial Board has come out in defense of Kayleigh McEnany today and her tough press briefings, telling the journalists who are crying about McEnany’s “contentious” style to “get over yourselves:
Is there anything more tedious than the press complaining about how it’s treated?
After grousing that Stephanie Grisham, President Trump’s former press secretary, never held a formal briefing, the media can’t stand that Kayleigh McEnany, her successor, has made those briefings too contentious.
McEnany steamrolls, she dodges, she lectures reporters on the questions they should be asking. It’s that last point that riles some journalists. “Indefensible and grotesque,” said Jonah Goldberg to Chris Wallace on Fox News. “I have to say that if Kayleigh McEnany had told Sam Donaldson and me what questions we should ask, that would not have gone well,” Wallace said.
To which Americans say: Stop whining!
“McEnany has decided to hit back…”
Of course the Trump administration is playing tough with the media — because the media has played tough with him before he was even elected. Nearly every question asked in the briefing room is usually in the loaded construction of, “As you know, things are terrible, and it’s your fault, care to comment?” McEnany has decided to hit back.
This isn’t about the First Amendment. The media in the United States can say whatever the hell it wants — and we, as the New York Post, thank heaven for that every day. But there’s nothing in the Constitution that says the press secretary has to be polite about it.
You know what word needs to be retired in the age of Trump? “Unprecedented.”
President John Adams signed a law making it a crime to criticize the government; 20 newspaper editors were imprisoned. Andrew Jackson not only had his own paper, edited by a member of his Cabinet, but it got government subsidies. Kayleigh McEnany hurting your feelings is not a constitutional crisis.
You buy ink by the barrel, fill the airwaves 24 hours a day and get millions of clicks on your Web sites. Victims? Get over yourselves.
To say the media has played tough with Trump is a huge understatement. It’s really been an all out attack on his presidency, blanketing the airwaves with every deep state conspiracy theory about Russian collusion and ‘quid pro quos’, even supporting House Democrats when they unfairly impeached Trump over nothing.
So yes, the NY Post is exactly right that these cry baby journalists need to get over themselves. McEnany has done a superb job and I love it every time she tells the media what they should be asking, because she’s always been right. Kudos to the NY Post for another great editorial.
Here are a couple of commentaries about the dominant liberal media in general and two named individuals featured by Fox (Chris Wallace and Jonah Goldberg) . The first by the estimable Victor Davis Hanson writing at American Greatness and the latter by Jon Dougherty writing at Bizpac Review:
ROME — The director general of the Vatican bank, Gian Franco Mammì, confirmed this week that the institution holds no investments in the fossil fuel industry, apparently in response to challenges from climate change activists.
Now we are not here to endorse the taking of hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with other drugs as a treatment for the Wuhan/CCP/Covid -19 virus or any drug without your doctor’s advice as part of a monitored treatment regime. Hydroxychloroquine while in long-time use also has long been recognized as having serious negative implications for people with certain preexisting conditions. The cardiac effects of HCQ are well-known. That is true of just about every drug or “miracle” drug.* They can have predictable side effects, including serious, on people with known problems but they are used anyway on the better chance curing the problem they are intended for is more compelling.
R Mall writes:
The ‘Liberal Leaning’ Media Has Passed Its Tipping Point
A return to balance would be commercially unviable. The best solution may be an honest embrace of bias.
By Van Gordon Sauter May 25, 2020
About 35 years ago I was sitting at lunch next to Jeane Kirkpatrick, a onetime Democrat who became a foreign-policy adviser to President Reagan and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. She was lamenting what she called the “liberal leaning” media. As the president of CBS News, I assured her it was only a “liberal tilt” and could be corrected.
“You don’t understand,“ she scolded. “It’s too late.”
Kirkpatrick was prophetic. The highly influential daily newspapers in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Boston are now decidedly liberal. On the home screen, the three broadcast network divisions still have their liberal tilt. Two of the three leading cable news sources are unrelentingly liberal in their fear and loathing of President Trump.
News organizations that claim to be neutral have long been creeping leftward, and their loathing of Mr. Trump has accelerated the pace. The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate, the entertainment industry, upscale magazines and the literary world. Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks.
This is what conservatism is up against, and the professoriate of course translates into what is taught children in grade-school and beyond
To many journalists, objectivity, balance and fairness—once the gold standard of reporting—are not mandatory in a divided political era and in a country they believe to be severely flawed. That assumption folds neatly into their assessment of the president. To the journalists, including more than a few Republicans, he is a blatant vulgarian, an incessant prevaricator, and a dangerous leader who should be ousted next January, if not sooner. Much of journalism has become the clarion voice of the “resistance,” dedicated to ousting the president, even though he was legally elected and, according to the polls, enjoys the support of about 44% of likely 2020 voters.
They are on a mission, however lazy in fact finding they feed each other ad nauseam
This poses significant problems not only for Mr. Trump but for the media’s own standing. If Mr. Trump prevails in November, what’s the next act, if any, for journalists and the resistance? They will likely find Mr. Trump more dangerous and offensive in a second term than in the first.
More important, how will a large segment of the public ever put stock in journalism it considers hostile to the country’s best interests? Unfortunately, dominant media organizations have bonded with another large segment of the public—one that embraces its new approach. Pulling back from anti-Trump activism could prove commercially harmful.
Hmmm — if so is it not limited however comfortable to them and then does that not imply a market for other outlets. And what of reports that news functions of the networks are money losers for those networks — what are the implications for profitable competitors?
On the other hand, how would the media respond to a Joe Biden victory (beyond exhilaration)? Will Mr. Biden be subjected to the rigor and skepticism imposed on Mr. Trump? Will he get a pass because he is a liberal and “not Trump”? The media’s protective coverage of the sexual-assault allegation against Mr. Biden is perhaps a clear and concerning preview to how his presidency would be covered.
The media seems uninterested in these issues of bias. But wouldn’t a softening of its editorial orientation bring new readers or viewers? Probably not. The growth of new customers would be more than offset by the defection of outraged members of the current audience. The news media seems very comfortable with its product and ability to sell it.
Keep in mind their supposed satisfaction with the size of their pie or market, their view is not one of a growth industry
There’s probably no way to seal the gap between the media and a large segment of the public. The media likes what it is doing. Admires it. Celebrates it. There is no personal, professional or financial reason to change. If anything, the gap will expand. Ultimately, the media finds the “deplorables” deplorable.
Yes there is if others are shown to be profitable (unless the concern is not with profitability which may be the case now but is that an obliviousness that is sustainable?
Dan Abrams, ABC’s chief legal-affairs anchor and founder of the website Mediaite, has a novel but valuable idea for the media—candor. Speaking to the matter at February’s Rancho Mirage Writers Festival, Mr. Abrams said “I think the first thing that would help . . . is to admit . . . that the people in the media are left of center.”
It would be delightful if a publisher, an editor, a reporter, would just say: Yes, I am left of center! I’m proud of it. I think our reporting is accurate. It best serves the public. And the credibility of the media. So there!
Publications open about their bias might feel freer to focus on the specifics: story selection, presentation, facts, fairness, balance. Not devoid of subtlety for sure, but manageable.
Journalism affects social cohesion. Convinced of its role and its legitimacy, however, the media doesn’t seem to much care. And the other side can certainly enjoy throwing rotten tomatoes at distant targets.
The “other side” can proceed to challenge and succeed at it
But America won’t reunite until far more people can look at a news story in print or on the screen and, of all things, believe it.
Mr. Sauter was president of CBS News, 1982-83 and 1986.