October 9, 2006
"You’re done. I didn’t have an opportunity for a follow-up question with Bill Clinton. You get your chance, you take advantage of it."
NYT ace interviewer Deborah Solomon subjects Chris Wallace to a pretty hostile interview, and he bites back.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
I would say that Ms. Solomon did a pretty bad job with that interview. I learned very little about Chris Wallace.
Ms. Solomon: But why go to Fox News, of all channels, which has been criticized for having a conservative bias?
But why go to [ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,PBS,NPR], of all channels, which have been criticized for having a liberal bias?
I have a feeling that's a Chris Wallace version of being pissed off. I agree MM -- she wasted his time. The best insights came from his ripostes to her pseudo-questions. Kudos to her (or her editor I guess) for including the last line.
Well, they may have thought he showed irascibility and didn't look like the sweetheart all his defenders said he was. They probably though he was hoist by his own petard, that he got upset by simple questions just like Clinton. I'm pretty sure most NYT readers laughed at him
Thanks for highlighting this, I'd never have seen it otherwise. I had no idea that Chris was Mike Wallace's son. Solomon seemed to be trying to ask Chris why he had betrayed his father by going to Fox News, and Wallace just refused to recognize that her question had any validity.
I have seen a lot of Chris Wallace and the interview does not come off negatively to me. I can see Wallace responding with the kind of wry resignation that he often uses: This is such typical news b.s.
That was just a bad set of interview questions. I loved "I am sorry you are not persuaded." And "You're done," was classic, too. She clearly had nothing substantitve to say, and she had wasted enough of his time.
Again and again, we see these ridiculous articles designed to flatter the NYT's loyal partisans. I think Wallace flattened her, but I'm sure the choir would see it differently.
Chris has the same quick mind that his father exhibited often. I was never sympathetic to Mike's politics, but have always enjoyed his interviews. Tough but not mean.
I don't know if I'm a Kool-Aid drinker or you just set my expectations too high (low?), but I didn't get a feeling of hostility (from Wallace's side) in that interview.
I've seen a lot of Wallace so when I read it I was able to read it in his "voice." What came across to me was wry humor.
I will admit he did seem a tad touchy with the "You weren't in the room." response and think that the suggested response by a commenter of, "I was dodging the man's spit," would have been delicious.
I can see how people might construe the interviewer as being a bit on the offense but these are the questions that her readership would like her to ask so I don't hold it against her.
Thanks for pointing out the story, Ann.
I think he knew from the start that this would be a hostile interview, and he engaged in a tit-for-tat escalation.
Wit and humor would have been better, but whatever. A journalist interviewing a journalist - who cares.
This is in the same category as the Greenhouse post below. The times bias is so complete and thorough that it exist in a world onto itself. This paper (one I receive & read daily) is so infused by Manhattan establishment liberalism that it is incapable of seeing its own glaring bias.
I found this exchange rather telling:
This was Bill Clinton unplugged — the good, the bad and the ugly.
I didn’t see it as bad or ugly. I saw it as a genuine expression of feeling.
So "genuine expressions of feeling" can't be "bad" or "ugly"? That's some pretty wooly-headed thinking there.
I think a lot of reporters saw Clinton's outburst as a sort of West Wing/Aaron Sorkin moment. Like Michael Douglas' big speech in the press conference at the end of "The American President," which gets him the girl, wins over the country to liberalism and smites the evil Republican.
Are you friends with Bill O’Reilly, the station’s emblematic conservative personality?
I thought that question was strange.
"Yeah, we totally hang out like all the time. He's my BFF. We made and exchanged these rockin' friendship bracelets last week." [Extends wrist.]
Shorter Chris Wallace
Fox News gets a bad rap because we're clearly conservative. Liberals can suck it. Bill Clinton was unplugged because I was in the room, and because I say so.
I'd agree with Gerald Hibbs' reading of the interview. I don't see Wallace's responses as being hostile as much as I see them as mostly being funny. This exchange reminds me a bit of watching the Letterman show, but with the roles reversed. Instead of a wise-ass interviewer who makes fun of some of his overly-serious guests, here we have an overly-earnest interviewer asking what she considers to be tough questions, and an interviewee who has a bit of fun with her as a result.
Over at Eat The Press, they have a link to a MediaBistro report of Wallace appearing on The Daily Show. There seems to be agreement over there that he was rude to Deborah Solomon, and rude to Jon Stewart -- teasing him about Steve Carell's movie success.
Since when are reporters supposed to be polite? Anyone ever seen "The Front Page?"
So the implication is that Chris Wallace is giving himself the same status as an ex-President? "I don't have to do follow-up because I'm as important as Clinton."
It seems insecure, unfriendly and inconsiderate.
Deborah Solomon's interviews are jejune at best- witness her questions to William F. Buckley:
"You have made so many offensive comments over the years. Do you regret any of them?"
"You seem indifferent to suffering. Have you ever suffered yourself?"
I refer all here to some of her greatest hits.
After your father criticized President Bush recently, why did you say publicly that he had “lost it”?
I was teasing. Some people apparently don’t have much of a sense of humor.
Was that recently? It was like a year ago. Oh, but DailyKos diaries and the like trotted it back out recently in order to make attacks on Chris Wallace, saying he was "scum" who "threw his father under the bus." All because he dared to ask a legit and predictable question of a powerful man they feel they have to protect.
The purpose of this interview wasn't to learn anything about Chris Wallace. It was to tell all "proper thinking" Americans they should keep hating Fox News and praise Bill Clinton for going off on them with such "genuine feeling." Beyond that, it was for Solomon to tell the Clintonoids she is on their team against journalists who dare ask probing questions of Democrat Celebrity-Kings. Should land her some interviews with inner-circle Clintonoids in the future.
that sure was hard hitting
the nyt at its best
I don't understand the left's anger at Wallace- wasn't he just "speaking truth to power"(tm)?
Ooops- I gues that only counts when it's their idea of truth directed at someone else's power.
So the implication is that Chris Wallace is giving himself the same status as an ex-President? "I don't have to do follow-up because I'm as important as Clinton."
It seems insecure, unfriendly and inconsiderate.
I think the implication was that Soloman had her chance to get the information she claims she wanted and blew it.
Her response to his comment: "gypcunyg" .... which is either the word verification or she's a "Firefly" fan. ;-)
So the implication is that Chris Wallace is giving himself the same status as an ex-President?
Um... he *has* the same status as an ex-President. Last I checked we don't have royalty in this country. Clinton isn't entitled to special treatment or respect that ordinary people are undeserving of.
Loved the exchange of "That doesn’t sound very convincing." and "I am sorry you’re not persuaded." Yes, Chris Wallace, your purpose here is to convince me, all-powerful Deborah.
Half of that interview is her statements to him. Is that what they teach in journalism school? I agree with whoever said it before, it's just a weird, weird interview.
Post a Comment