Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wallace
So I know that this is the first post, but I figured that I might as well start with something that has been bugging me since it aired. From the title of this post you can already assume I'm talking about the heated Clinton interview by Wallace of Fox News. Before I say anything let me make a few things clear right off the bat:
(1) I consider myself a moderate and have both liberal and conservative stances on several issues.
(2) I don't favor a particular news organization. It is only through the way that I was raised that I prefer CNN over Fox News.
(3) I would have voted for President Clinton both times that he was up for election if I had been old enough at the time to do so. (I turned 22 on Sept 5 of this year...you do the math).
(4) With the previous statement being said, I now believe that it would have been a mistake if John Kerry had been elected president.
With all that in mind I'll start by just recapping the events for those of you that don't know what happened. So its seems that Fmr. President Bill Clinton agreed to a Sunday interview with Fox News's Chris Wallace. He apparently agreed under the pretense that they would talk about the new Clinton Global Initiative (a consortium of wealthy patrons that are trying to give money to all sorts of great causes, which will now be referred to as the CGI) for at least half of the interview (7.5 minutes since it was supposed to run for approximately 15 minuites). Chris Wallace, however, had other ideas. Lately there has been alot of healthy discussion about what could have been done to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden alot sooner, and thus prevented the events of 9/11. As a result the Clinton administration has come under increasingly tougher scrutiney about their activities, decisions and actions of their agencies while Clintion was in office. It seems that the entire debate had taken its toll on President Clinton's patience. After some bantering about doing good, helping in developing countries, and how much good a former president can do Wallace asked this question:
"Why didn't you do more to put Bin Laden and Al-qaeda out of business?"
Wallace claimed before asking it that the question had been submitted from viewer email. Frankly I'm willing to believe that may have been true, but given the fact that there was already alot of spin about that very question in the news already I'm pretty certain that the eggheads at Fox had already thought that it was poignant enough to ask given this unique opportunity. What followed was a rather lengthy 11 minute (by my count, correct me if I'm wrong) retort that left Wallace speechless and without any concievable control over his interview. Clinton began by first blasting the Fox network and called the question a "conservative hit job" before he began a series of arguments that logically validate his claims. Many of them stemming from claims in former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke's book (which I personally have not read).
Now considering that I am not aquainted with the full facts I am not able to comment on the validity of Clinton's claims made in the interview, or Wallace's or Fox's intentions in asking that particular question. However, I can comment on the incredible aftermath of one of the most heated interviews to occur on the Fox network. In point of fact the aftermath of the interview was picked up by every major news agency including CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC news. Fox and all of these news organizations all said the same thing to introduce the topic. That Clinton had lost his temper on air. It was quite possibly the first time in the history of every major news network that they all managed to agree on an issue. That Clinton was furious and lost his temper in an interview. So what happened to Clinton's speech? His retort that was logical and factually based? It was lost in the muddy swill that is TV sensationalism. No one was really talking about his message at all. So one could ask why would the media not talk about the message? Well, in my humble opinion, it boils down to one very simple fact:
People don't like looking stupid on camera
What the reporters in all of the major news networks are doing is creating an unspoken understanding, alot like different branches of the same mafia. The agreement in this case was that they weren't going to let some former president, especially Slick Willy, 1-up them on air. So they spun it as a warning to all of the other guests that could potentially turn into the incredible Hulk and smash them enmasse. Now notice how I'm not saying that Clinton was right. As I said I can't comment on the validity of his claims, but I do know that he did try to capture Osama Bin Laden. That much I know for certain is true. However, the real issue here is the way that the news was reported. The Third Estate ie the mainstream media has one job, and one job only. It is to expose our public figures to us, the public, in a way that we have not seen them exposed before. Mission accomplished on that front, Chris! However, exposure isn't complete without their opinions or dialog. The real news of this situation boils down to the fundamental five questions: who, what, when, where, why, and how.
who: President Clintion
what: His actions to try to kill or capture Bin Laden
where: Fox news
why: Interview
how: By losing his temper
Take a look at that and tell me what is missing from any of the commentaries that have been heard on this subject. Thats right, the what is missing. Where is the message that he stated? If anything in those five questions stands out as being important I would say the 'what' is what people should be most interested in.
However, hindsight is 20/20 on this issue, but has it made a real impact in the world of mass media? The only answer to that is no. With the exception of a few small things:
(1) Chris Wallace is probably going to get that corner office he wants, if he didn't already have it.
(2) Controversy is like a Thanksgiving turkey to reporters and they love to stir it up like cranberries.
In other words everyone by the end of this will probably only remember two things. That President Clinton is mentally unstable and Chris Wallace is one hell of a journalist. Two things that I ask you the reader to carefully consider before truely saying that you believe either one.
(1) I consider myself a moderate and have both liberal and conservative stances on several issues.
(2) I don't favor a particular news organization. It is only through the way that I was raised that I prefer CNN over Fox News.
(3) I would have voted for President Clinton both times that he was up for election if I had been old enough at the time to do so. (I turned 22 on Sept 5 of this year...you do the math).
(4) With the previous statement being said, I now believe that it would have been a mistake if John Kerry had been elected president.
With all that in mind I'll start by just recapping the events for those of you that don't know what happened. So its seems that Fmr. President Bill Clinton agreed to a Sunday interview with Fox News's Chris Wallace. He apparently agreed under the pretense that they would talk about the new Clinton Global Initiative (a consortium of wealthy patrons that are trying to give money to all sorts of great causes, which will now be referred to as the CGI) for at least half of the interview (7.5 minutes since it was supposed to run for approximately 15 minuites). Chris Wallace, however, had other ideas. Lately there has been alot of healthy discussion about what could have been done to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden alot sooner, and thus prevented the events of 9/11. As a result the Clinton administration has come under increasingly tougher scrutiney about their activities, decisions and actions of their agencies while Clintion was in office. It seems that the entire debate had taken its toll on President Clinton's patience. After some bantering about doing good, helping in developing countries, and how much good a former president can do Wallace asked this question:
"Why didn't you do more to put Bin Laden and Al-qaeda out of business?"
Wallace claimed before asking it that the question had been submitted from viewer email. Frankly I'm willing to believe that may have been true, but given the fact that there was already alot of spin about that very question in the news already I'm pretty certain that the eggheads at Fox had already thought that it was poignant enough to ask given this unique opportunity. What followed was a rather lengthy 11 minute (by my count, correct me if I'm wrong) retort that left Wallace speechless and without any concievable control over his interview. Clinton began by first blasting the Fox network and called the question a "conservative hit job" before he began a series of arguments that logically validate his claims. Many of them stemming from claims in former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke's book (which I personally have not read).
Now considering that I am not aquainted with the full facts I am not able to comment on the validity of Clinton's claims made in the interview, or Wallace's or Fox's intentions in asking that particular question. However, I can comment on the incredible aftermath of one of the most heated interviews to occur on the Fox network. In point of fact the aftermath of the interview was picked up by every major news agency including CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC news. Fox and all of these news organizations all said the same thing to introduce the topic. That Clinton had lost his temper on air. It was quite possibly the first time in the history of every major news network that they all managed to agree on an issue. That Clinton was furious and lost his temper in an interview. So what happened to Clinton's speech? His retort that was logical and factually based? It was lost in the muddy swill that is TV sensationalism. No one was really talking about his message at all. So one could ask why would the media not talk about the message? Well, in my humble opinion, it boils down to one very simple fact:
People don't like looking stupid on camera
What the reporters in all of the major news networks are doing is creating an unspoken understanding, alot like different branches of the same mafia. The agreement in this case was that they weren't going to let some former president, especially Slick Willy, 1-up them on air. So they spun it as a warning to all of the other guests that could potentially turn into the incredible Hulk and smash them enmasse. Now notice how I'm not saying that Clinton was right. As I said I can't comment on the validity of his claims, but I do know that he did try to capture Osama Bin Laden. That much I know for certain is true. However, the real issue here is the way that the news was reported. The Third Estate ie the mainstream media has one job, and one job only. It is to expose our public figures to us, the public, in a way that we have not seen them exposed before. Mission accomplished on that front, Chris! However, exposure isn't complete without their opinions or dialog. The real news of this situation boils down to the fundamental five questions: who, what, when, where, why, and how.
who: President Clintion
what: His actions to try to kill or capture Bin Laden
where: Fox news
why: Interview
how: By losing his temper
Take a look at that and tell me what is missing from any of the commentaries that have been heard on this subject. Thats right, the what is missing. Where is the message that he stated? If anything in those five questions stands out as being important I would say the 'what' is what people should be most interested in.
However, hindsight is 20/20 on this issue, but has it made a real impact in the world of mass media? The only answer to that is no. With the exception of a few small things:
(1) Chris Wallace is probably going to get that corner office he wants, if he didn't already have it.
(2) Controversy is like a Thanksgiving turkey to reporters and they love to stir it up like cranberries.
In other words everyone by the end of this will probably only remember two things. That President Clinton is mentally unstable and Chris Wallace is one hell of a journalist. Two things that I ask you the reader to carefully consider before truely saying that you believe either one.
posted by Vi at 1:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home