Chris Wallace Goes Beck to the Future

The headline out of Chris Wallace's tirade at President Obama for appearing on every Sunday talk show except his Fox News Sunday was that he called Obama's staff "the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington." But elsewhere in the rant, which aired on The O'Reilly Factor last week, Wallace let spill a sequence of numbers that revealed just how deranging life in the Foxhole can be for a transplanted "mainstream" reporter.

Wallace was taking the Fox line that the Obama administration condescends toward folks like the protesters at the 9/12 rally in Washington:

WALLACE: When you have David Axelrod go on Face the Nation and denigrate the million or, I don't know, 100,000--thousands and tens of thousands of people who came here into the streets of Washington to protest--

O'REILLY: 70,000, right.

WALLACE: --and basically says, you know, they're not representative. Well, they are representative of those 70,000.

To see, in the space of a few seconds, the former NBC and ABC newsman slink down from the thoroughly debunked, Glenn Beckian fantasy crowd estimate of a "million," to the still inflated "100,000" to, eventually, the fact-based 70,000 is to watch an acrobat in real pain. The precipitous drop of 930,000 points of cred has got to hurt--not to mention getting fact-checked by Bill O'Reilly.

In Chris's countdown, you notice, his initial, Fox-trained resort to rightwing propaganda seemed to kick in autonomically. But then he caught himself, perhaps realizing that the one million number might sound kinda Beckeroo Banzai to his old establishment news colleague, and so he jumped down to something ("100,000") that couldn't quite be tagged a lie but was nonetheless padded with an extra zero to break the fall. Then, perhaps channeling his father, Ur-journalist Mike Wallace, or the stepfather who actually raised him, former CBS News president Bill Leonard, Chris quickly came to rest on the "thousands and tens of thousands" that reputable news organizations had reported, based on the D.C. Fire Department's official estimate of 70K.

Another telling moment in the clip comes early on, when Wallace clearly blames Beck and his "point of view" for spoiling his relationship with the White House. But blaming Beck for the diss must be causing Wallace a serious case of cognitive dissonance. Apparently believing that Obama is lumping him, Fox, and Fox viewers into one big snub pool, Wallace finds himself echoing (if not also identifying with) the rejected, resentful 9/12ers and therefore, ultimately, the outsiderish outrage of their leader, Beck. After all, Chris Wallace is a special brand at Fox: his Sunday show is the only national news outlet on the Fox Broadcasting network, and by hiring him in 2003, Fox hoped to garner some of the big network respect that has generally eluded the cable guys over at Fox News.

(For what it's worth, the White House press office says Obama skipped Wallace's show because the Fox network refused to run the president's health care address to a joint session of Congress.)

President Obama's nine months in office must have been a letdown for Fox. Though their cable ratings have soared to Wrestlemania levels as the channel has transformed itself into a Birther and Deather petting zoo, there's no way to gainsay the fact that they've lost their eight-year-long royal perch at the White House. The hormonal haze that proximity to power creates in Washington is, for Fox, gone with the wind.

But exile can forge a delicious self-pity, and Fox simply couldn't resist adding artificial ingredients and supersizing it (just as Beck, and briefly Wallace, did about that crowd size). Fox turned all the tea partying and sympathy into a fullsize print ad: Over photos of 9/12 marchers, it read: "How Did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN Miss the Story?" To which CNN answered:

Doing the math is not high on any Fox presenter's resume, but today the three main network evening news shows still split up some 20 million viewers every night, while O'Reilly, the largest cable draw, hovers around 3 million, and poor Chris can't even post a third of that (for a broadcast show). But over the years Fox (along with the GOP agenda itself) has gotten a lot of mojo for its relatively puny numbers, mostly by bullying the nets into covering their agitprop and generally making enough noise for two networks.

Any dreams Wallace might have had of stepping out of the shadow of his illustrious TV news forebears were passive-aggressively squashed by Bill O'Reilly himself, when he laid down the law to Chris: "Mike Wallace, CBS guy. You're rooted there in the network news. It's over. The power shift in the media is now with FOX, FOX News and talk radio."

Was it a power shift or Wallace's own abysmal ratings that led him, in August, to promote a guest's Palinesque claim that a government booklet on end-of-life counseling for U.S. veterans is really a "death book"? (See, Obama's minions want to convince vets to kill themselves in order to contain military health costs.) As Media Matter's Eric Boehlert writes, it's "an absolutely absurd conspiracy theory that Wallace must have known came without even the faintest hint of reality to it."

But even a little "death book" hysteria failed to increase Wallace's viewership--by tens of thousands, 100,000, much less a million. The lesson of Glenn Beck's career for all newspeople is that working for Fox is like the old saw about getting pregnant: you can't be just a little bit nutty.

Comments (42)

1. SAVAN: "Doing the math is not high on any Fox presenter's resume, but today the three main network evening news shows still split up some 20 million viewers every night, while O'Reilly, the largest cable draw, hovers around 3 million, and poor Chris can't even post a third of that (for a broadcast show)...."

   Gee, sounds like Leslie is just flat out jealous or feeling a bit insecure.

   What the "math" that matters, is which of these networks are losing money on their newscasts? It's pretty clear after Van Jones and ACORN, the folks that don't want their Kool-aid induced euphoria disrupted are watching those Legacy newscasts......and those folks are generally the takers, not the givers....and advertisers know that.

   Posted by Happy at 09/25/2009 @ 3:59pm

2. dollars-to-donuts Mask creamed his shorts when he read the blog title...

   Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:01pm

3. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

   Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 4:27pm

4. Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   You do seem obsessed with this Mask person, who must be doing something right, after all.

   Does Fox News live up to its name and cover, you know, foxes. I mean the animal kind with fur and stuff that live in the wild.

   Posted by kennyboy at 09/25/2009 @ 4:27pm

5. (For what it's worth, the White House press office says Obama skipped Wallace's show because the Fox network refused to run the president's health care address to a joint session of Congress.)

   Guess they didn't want their ratings to dive into the toilet like the networks that did show it!

   Posted by BigPasture at 09/25/2009 @ 4:37pm

6. kennyboy--Mask is obsessed with Beck, et al. I'm having fun with his obsession by pointing out whenever he talks about Beck et al (which is often, if you stay a while, you'll see)...but a blog that actually works Beck's name into the title...hope Mask isn't wearing his last clean underwear...

   Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:43pm

7. I mean the animal kind with fur and stuff that live in the wild.

   Posted by kennyboy at 09/25/2009 @ 4:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   --oh thaaaaaaat kind of "fox"...thanks for the explanation!

   Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:45pm

8. I've often said that the motto of plutocratic journalism is "If it sells, it must be true." Some of you have probably thought this was hyperbole.

   Not so! Please carefully read this posting from our resident plutocrat, "Happy."

   'What the "math" that matters, is which of these networks are losing money on their newscasts? It's pretty clear after Van Jones and ACORN, the folks that don't want their Kool-aid induced euphoria disrupted are watching those Legacy newscasts......and those folks are generally the takers, not the givers....and advertisers know that.'

   Apparently, the easiest way to inflate the number of people reported to have appeared at a demonstration is to vote with network sponsorship dollars. Should we doubt that the media's laser-like focus on the minuscule misdemeanors of ACORN, our country's pre-eminent poor people's organization, also reflects the world-view of the media's corporate sponsors?

   Posted by JakobFabian at 09/25/2009 @ 5:05pm

9. Should we doubt that the media's laser-like focus on the minuscule misdemeanors of ACORN, our country's pre-eminent poor people's organization, also reflects the world-view of the media's corporate sponsors?

   Posted by JakobFabian at 09/25/2009 @ 5:05pm

   "miniscule misdemeanor"....ROTFLMAO!

   For something so very true in YOUR world, you must be heart broken that everybody is cutting off ties and funding to the "pre-eminent poor people's organization" you obviously lovingly call ACORN......again, I'm ROTFLMAO!

   There you have it folks! Quoting myself, as Jakob did as well of me....."It's pretty clear after Van Jones and ACORN, the folks that don't want their Kool-aid induced euphoria disrupted are watching those Legacy newscasts"!

   Thanks, Jakob.....the best testimonial you've ever given me!

   Posted by Happy at 09/25/2009 @ 5:20pm

10. Posted by kennyboy at 09/25/2009 @ 4:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    its a love hate dealio

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/25/2009 @ 5:26pm

11. Notice how almost nobody even addressed the discrepancy about the numbers?

    The article is about how disinformation can be casually passed along and then accepted as fact by those desperate people who want to create their own reality.

    We had eight long years of that. It became a habit. But, like any drug, it takes will power and possibly intervention to break its hold.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/25/2009 @ 5:27pm

12. dexter666--I neither love nor hate an anonymous interweb blog commenter. If I knew the person behind the Mask, perhaps I would love or hate him, but I doubt it would be that intense, we'd probably just very slightly dislike each other and part ways...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 5:47pm

13. Meanwhile, Maasch is asleep again. How does he manage "China" with all that rack time? And Happy seems anything but, while BP/Rio/Commanche is still shoveling that, well, you know...

    Posted by kennyboy at 09/25/2009 @ 6:04pm

14. Cracks me up how threatened the left is by Fox News.

    But not by the New York Times?

    Don't you see that neither outlet is presenting the truth?

    Our gullibility is artfully being used against us, to purposefully divide us.

    I'm generally conservative and can see how controlled and full of crap the NYT is. But, although Fox News is more in my mindset with some of its reporting (especially with the coming addition of the great John Stossel!), I can see how controlled and full of crap it is too.

    My point? If you think any of the media has your interests at heart you are wrong. They exist by design to HIDE THE TRUTH from us. Even The Nation.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/25/2009 @ 6:06pm

15. So, according to most of these postings...

    There's MY truth...

    And there's YOUR truth...

    NONE of it is the truth...

    It's not ALL lies...

    Just MOSTLY lies...

    But I like MY lies better than YOUR lies...

    I think you are INSANE...

    You think I am INANE...

    Thinking is NOT involved...

    Darwin was not E-volved...

    ............................

    I've been to FOX news online and, to me, it's just a step above the National Enquirer, so I'll get my lies from another source, thanks. Wallace interviewing O'Reilly is just a step below where I can go.

    There's a one liner there! Anyone?

    Posted by ficheye at 09/25/2009 @ 7:04pm

16. "Apparently, the easiest way to inflate the number of people reported to have appeared at a demonstration is to vote with network sponsorship dollars. Should we doubt that the media's laser-like focus on the minuscule misdemeanors of ACORN, our country's pre-eminent poor people's organization, also reflects the world-view of the media's corporate sponsors?"

    truer words have not been spoken in recent memory.

    and chris wallace really is a sad little man.

    and what's with the talking out of the side of his mouth, like he's in a timewarp from the early 20s or something.

    what a freak!

    Posted by darladoon at 09/25/2009 @ 7:39pm

17. Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 5:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i thought u were his sock puppet...

    hey - how bout that census worker?

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/25/2009 @ 8:09pm

18. The FL courts, I'm not sure if went to FL Supremes or not but basically fox is allowed to lie. Always thought they shouldn't be allowed the product name 'News' since it's only entertainment. All news is entertainment but not all entertainment is news. Like Bourbon, and Champagne , there are imitators but not real. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3441805108254483121#

    Posted by douglaslee at 09/26/2009 @ 03:34am

19. Considering that there are laws that restrict an entertainment broadcast regarding airtime for candidates in a pending election, it would be interesting if Fox "News" Channel was challenged in this way.

    Chris Mathews is a liar as is Rush, Hannity et al...but what else can he do?

    The viewership at Fox "News" Channel is more lemminglike than most lemmings. His audience wants a certain product and Mathews provides it.

    I really don't think Fox "News" Sunday wants Obama on anyway. If they really did, why be so pissyfaced about it.

    Posted by koroviev at 09/26/2009 @ 04:48am

20. I'm generally conservative and can see how controlled and full of crap the NYT is. But, although Fox News is more in my mindset with some of its reporting (especially with the coming addition of the great John Stossel!), I can see how controlled and full of crap it is too. Posted by freiheit1 at 09/25/2009 @ 6:06pm

    I thought right-wingers weren't fond of the 'relative' nature of 'truth.'

    and John Stossel, please...he's as big a crack pot as Pat Sajak and the rest of the conspiracy-loving right.

    Posted by erazma at 09/26/2009 @ 07:29am

21. Leslie honey, multi-tasking when cleaning your home might be good but not when you're writing an article where you're trying to make a point. It just makes it seem like you have issues. Call me honey and we'll talk through them. (me holding my thumb and little finger to my head - Call me we can work through this thing).

    Cheers, ASK

    Posted by ASK at 09/26/2009 @ 12:29pm

22. Fox News did run the president's health care address to a joint session of Congress. The network is different. Right now, Fox News is the only news service that is providing negative (real) news about he Obama administration. If you want to learn what is going on, there is no other source. The major networks and most of the print media have lost all credibility on reporting the truth. Look no further than ACORN, the criminal syndicate.

    Posted by pyeatte at 09/26/2009 @ 1:14pm

23. koroviev ; give us an example of a lie from Chris Mathews. While there are clear examples of lies and noted distortions from Hannity and Rush, I'm at a loss to recall Chris Mathews, "miss representing facts", like his Machiavellian counter part's.

    Something Chris mentioned the other day, was from PT Barnum. It characterizes Fox, and is at the heart of this article. If you want a crowd -- i. e. ratings -- start a fight. Then pass out tickets to everyone watching. Fox News is as authentic as the, "World Wrestling federation", whose price for admission is gullibility, a couple of tea bags, and a willingness to trump facts for a good slug fest.

    Posted by drkaza12 at 09/26/2009 @ 3:21pm

24. What is the point of this left side-right side media bashing? The difference appears that the Left oriented group will spin the story to emphasize the positive aspects of President Obama's actions, but will print negative comments about him when they do not think he is being agressive enough. The Right oriented group talk about the negative aspects.

    The difference is that the Right side media will use outright lies and repeat those talking points even after they have been thoroughly debunked.

    Some of us read website entries by both sides and attempt to have a debate about the issues. It seems that those from the Right don't actually want to debate, but to scream their POV and disregard and demean anyone who has a different POV.

    It is actually amazing that the "anti-Right" have been tolerant and speaking relatively polite when talking to bloggers on the Right. Take the time to read all the entries on a blog before ranting...it may be enlightening.

    Posted by afisher at 09/26/2009 @ 7:41pm

25. koroviev ; give us an example of a lie from Chris Mathews. While there are clear examples of lies and noted distortions from Hannity and Rush, I'm at a loss to recall Chris Mathews, "miss representing facts", like his Machiavellian counter part's.

    Posted by drkaza12 at 09/26/2009

    He lied about the "Death Book" bullsh*t that Fox "News" was flogging at the end of August '09.

    He said that the Obama Admin. was directing doctors to steer veterans to use the book. Not true.

    He said Bush Admin. suspended using the counseling guide for end of life decisions (the Death Book). Again, not true.

    Posted by koroviev at 09/26/2009 @ 10:17pm

26. The major networks and most of the print media have lost all credibility on reporting the truth. Look no further than ACORN, the criminal syndicate. Posted by pyeatte at 09/26/2009 @ 1:14pm

    Isn't FOX a 'major network' as well? There's 'no other source' for the truth? That's unfounded nonsense.

    ACORN? Criminal syndicate? Nowhere near. You are parroting a talking point. They are dysfunctional. That's more clear.

    I'd agree that ALL of the news outlets slant their coverage to provide solace for the fear riddled masses. And to sell advertisement. You just happen to buy the products.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/27/2009 @ 11:34am

27. Let me get this straight. Savan is taking Chris Wallace to task for throwing crowd figures around, (70,000 is a lot of people), but doesn't take Obama to task for ignoring the number one rated Fox News. Isn't Obama President of ALL the people?

    Don't the viewers who watch Fox News, (two or three times those who watch CNN and MSNBC), deserve to have The President give them equal time? Obama comes off as an immature coward for not facing his critics. Is he really afraid to sit down with Bill O'Reilly again? Is he afraid to answer the difficult questions that none of the leftwing media will pose but that he knows he will get from Fox?

    It's time to grow up.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/27/2009 @ 10:15pm

28. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/27/2009 @ 10:15pm

    gunny doing his "Nathan Thurm" imitation...

    "I'm not being defensive, YOU're being defensive!"

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 07:26am

29. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/27/2009 @ 10:15pm

    The viewers of Fox have every right and every opportunity to see/hear the President.

    There's this new thing called a "remote control." With it, one can change the channel from the comfort of the sofa.

    Posted by skeletonman at 09/28/2009 @ 09:00am

30. Posted by skeletonman at 09/28/2009 @ 09:00am

    They can't do that, skelly. If they watch CBS or ABC or any of the "Liberal Media"....they might hear that Obama is NOT a Marxist or possibly WAS born in the United States!!!!!

    And they can't allow that to happen!

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 11:10am

31. My point? If you think any of the media has your interests at heart you are wrong. They exist by design to HIDE THE TRUTH from us. Even The Nation.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/25/2009 @ 6:06pm

    I with frei on this one. None are to be trusted.

    Posted by k330k at 09/28/2009 @ 12:44pm

32. Posted by k330k at 09/28/2009 @ 12:44pm

    FREI sees Federal Reserve Board members under his bed and hiding in his closet!

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 1:27pm

33. ACORN!~!!

    ACORN!!!

    ACORN!!!

    No news but ACORN...

    this group may have stolen thousands of dollars...why won't the LIBERAL media cover this HUGE epoch shattering story!!!

    They were sooooo eager to cover millions missing from private contractors...after a couple of years...

    must be more from the World Socialist and Scientist Controlling Board, which has veto power over the CEOs of VIACOM, GE, Clear Channel, Cumulus as well as NASA and other scientific bodies. It is well known that VIACOM wants to kill capitalism.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/28/2009 @ 2:50pm

34. Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 1:27pm

    ooooohhhhh...

    Alan Greenspan under my bed!

    I once had a William Defoe under my bed

    (apologies to the writers of Family Guy for stealing their work)

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/28/2009 @ 2:52pm

35. Posted by crabwalk at 09/28/2009 @ 2:52pm

    Green Goblin or Sgt. Elias?

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 2:55pm

36. ACORN? Criminal syndicate? Nowhere near. You are parroting a talking point.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/27/2009 @ 11:34am

    Hold on. You'll note one of the things ACORN does is tax councelling. I'm not 100% sure, only 99% sure, that ACORN acted as a criminal syndicate here.

    When the Earned Income Tax Credit came out it incented people to work so it was set up something like this: (I'm just making up the numbers to illustrate a relationship)

    $5000 got you a $100 welfare payment/refundable tax credit

    $10,000 of income got you $250

    $15,000 of income got you $500

    $20,000 of income got ou $250

    $25,000 of income got you $100

    There was a huge scam whereby anybody who earned less than $15,000 was told that they should lie about their income and claim that they had earned $15,000 to get a higher payment ($500) than they were entitled to.

    When the IRS discovered this and started auditing the flagrant fraud, ARCON went to the legacy media to whine about how the IRS should focus on the "big" tax cheaters and stop "picking" on poor people.

    It was flagrant tax fraud. It was incredibly easy to detect. It was a criminal enterprise.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/28/2009 @ 4:30pm

37. It was flagrant tax fraud. It was incredibly easy to detect. It was a criminal enterprise. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/28/2009 @ 4:30pm

    WOW! Didn't know that. I'll research it of course.

    However, to be a real nit picker, 'criminal enterprise' and 'criminal syndicate' mean two different things. Criminal training center would be more exact, if the above is true.

    A syndicate would mean that there's a 'boss' who gets a large kickback from the proceeds, like the mafia. I'm not going to defend them, but let's get the definition straight.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/28/2009 @ 6:26pm

38. It is always amusing, and never ceases to amaze me, how Fox News drives the left nuts!

    Leftists come completely unglued at the very mention of Fox News.

    It is like how kryptonite affected Superman. Just mention Fox News to a leftist and watch the fun begin!

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 6:50pm

39. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Taxguide/story?id=1824460&page=1

    Those who act on that temptation [to cheat on thier taxes], be warned: Nearly one in every 100 taxpayers was audited last year -- double the number who were audited in 2000...

    "We've been particularly concerned about high-income individuals and corporations. Now we've increased the audit rate for millionaires -- it's up to over 5 percent," says Everson.

    But low-income taxpayers are being targeted too. The IRS has discovered the earned income tax credit, meant to serve as an incentive to work, has become -- for some -- an incentive for fraud.

    "Unscrupulous tax preparers have been preparing returns that have been overstating people's income to maximize the earned income tax credit -- strange as that may sound," says Tom Ochsenschlager, Vice President of the American Institute of CPAs.

    *******************************************************

    I'll admit that I'm jumping to the conclusion that "Unscrupulous tax preparers" includes ACORN. How many think I'm wrong?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/28/2009 @ 7:02pm

40. It is always amusing, and never ceases to amaze me, how Fox News drives the left nuts!

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 6:50pm

    It's called, "projection". None of us trolls here can be accused of getting all of our news from one source. I read many different sites with many different political views. My beef with NYT/CBS/MSNBC/WAPO/NPR is the belief that they are completely objective and that their own biases never cause their reporting to be skewed.

    Liberals who get 100% of their news from NYT/CBS/AP/WAPO/NPR believe there are Conservatives who get 100% of their news from Fox News and the Liberals think it's unfair that people aren't forced to accept their sites as, "objective".

    Fox claims it's balanced. If you are completely unaware that you have taken a side it's impossible to be balanced because you are unaware that you are biasing your reporting. By honestly recognizing that they have a POV, Fox is balanced.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/28/2009 @ 7:17pm

41. It is like how kryptonite affected Superman. Just mention Fox News to a leftist and watch the fun begin! Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 6:50pm

    And

    By honestly recognizing that they have a POV, Fox is balanced. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/28/2009 @ 7:17pm

    1. No, no... Just mention 'RightWingNews' and let the fun begin! As much as you like to deny it, you sent me there once. It's such a surreal place that I still go there often just for the wonder of it all. Haw!

    Fox isn't really all news... it's like the National Enquirer with lucid moments here and there! I'm not sure the kryptonite reference fits... it's more like how people react to bug spray. Heeee!

    2. As far as Darins POV, that's a real stretch. By recognizing that they are biased, then they are balanced? Subjectivism at its best! I especially liked how he rules out almost every common news source except for Fox. Oh sure, he SAYS that he goes to other sources, but WHICH sources? That's the hole in there. I'd love to get a comprehensive list from you guys. I'll trade you! I listen to NPR, but people I know refer to NPR as 'Nice Polite Republicans'.

    How about Reuters? Leftist rag?

    Posted by ficheye at 09/28/2009 @ 7:48pm

42. In fairness, on the numbers...the much lower numbers from other media outlets ALSO didn't seem to match the photographs coming out of the event.

    Moreover...the broader point seems to be that there were huge numbers of people marching on 9/12. Isn't that that part that's actually significant?

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/29/2009 @ 8:16pm