FOX's Chris Wallace unplugged with Jon Stewart
Reported by Chrish - November 2, 2004 -
I caught Chris Wallace with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show November 1. They discussed the impending election, exit polls, and the uninformed electorate. I thought it was a terrific interview which revealed quite a lot.
Of course they led with tomorrow's (tonight's!) election, with Jon asking if Chris was excited, geared up? Chris replied "There are so many election nights when you know what's going to happen, and tomorrow night we have no idea. For instance, 8:00 or 9:00, PA, OH, FL, one of those states suddenly does something it's not supposed to do, NJ, it's happening in real time.... In this prepackaged world, to have events really happening, unpredictably, off script - it's a news man's dream."
Comment: This blew me away. What does he mean, one of those states might do something they're not supposed to do? Many of us are worried about another fixed election, and knowing that Jeb has been maneuvering for months with his buffet of dirty tricks, and the president of Diebold promised Ohio to Bush, to hear a Fox insider speak like this is disturbing.
That tonight will be different for him ( a "dream") tells me that his normal "pre-packaged" week holds no surprises and he is not regularly covering the "events really happening, unpredictably off-script", i.e. reality. It is an admission that Fox "journalists" parrot the agenda and say what they're told, with no investigation or analysis of their own.
There was a brief discussion of exit polling in which Chris revealed that VNS, which was blamed for the "bad" call for Gore in 2000, has simply morphed into NEP. In his words, "we just changed the letters". Jon asked if they (at Fox) got independent data, or only from NEP, and Chris told him they get the data from NEP , but they "view it independently", and there are 4 people at "the decision desk" who have to agree before a call is made. Gee how hard will it be to find four Fox personalities who will agree to call the election for Bush?
For more information on the exit polling go to www.exitpoll.net , Edison Research, or Mitofsky Intl.
There was one more segment, and Jon took on an issue dear to The News Hounds. He said "there's so much more news now but the electorate seems less informed. Do you think that's because they're inundated and don't know where to sort or is there more clearly, a fog, purposefully, a fog?" Chris answered that he agreed there is more info out there but was not sure if he agreed people are less informed.
Comment: Apparently Mr. Wallace hasn't heard of the recent PIPA report, which would make him less informed than Newshounds' readers. He should read www.newshounds.us - we reported on it. No fog here.
He proceeded to give the example of Dan Rather's TANG story ("memogate") and said in the old days of three networks that story would not have been found, and referred to blogs and a thousand flowers (of democracy, I think) blooming. Jon steered him back to the "fog" alternative by saying that he was referring to certain polls that show 60% of Bush supporters believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by Saddam Hussein, for example, and that basic foundational facts seem to not be seeping in at this time.
Chris amazed me by answering "I think, frankly, that there were certain people in this country who wanted that information, or misinformation, out there."
Comment: a particularly bold statement. I hope he made it home safely. That is a flat acknowledgment by someone in the loop that Americans are deliberately being misled. Now, who could be doing this? And why? Hmmm.
Jon asks if the fact that both Bush and Kerry supporters appear to be misinformed about their candidates is a natural occurrence? Chris, who was at all four debates, said that he came away from them knowing there are really stark differences between the candidates. Jon jumped in, agreeing, and said "take those stark differences and put them through that bizarre spin mechanism,...what comes out is this pablum of you're not quite sure. That's what I mean by the fog. Is there any way to cut through that and get to what you're saying, those clear distinctions?"
Chris: "No, and I think part of the problem, ..., you've got a lot of people trying to keep your eye off the ball."
Jon:"Maybe it's a question of the anchors taking on an activist role and becoming more authoritative."
Chris: "Yea, that's what we want, is more biased anchors." Both are laughing.
Jon then apologizes for not having more time to promote Wallace's book, and it's over.
Comment: You go Jon! While it was done with a lot of his deferential humor and gentleness, Jon Stewart got some real answers to questions the "real" journalists should be asking.
I am going to begin using the term "activist anchors" and frame the debate MY way. I urge you all to do the same.
We all need to be keenly aware in the days and (lordy, I hope not) weeks after the election as the media elite at Fox try to take our eyes off the prize.
Tangent: You can write to The Spin Project for a post election media kit.
