The recent Week magazine pointed out Chris Wallace, the former host of Fox News Sunday, left because “I just no longer felt comfortable with the programming at Fox.” It cited a Tucker Carlson documentary pointing to the possibility January 6th fracas had “false flag” aspects.

Carlson pointed to the alleged FBI’s heavy involvement in a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan and questioned whether a strong FBI presence was also present in the Capitol invasion. To Wallace, this theory is indefensible.

The Week characterized Wallace as a “down-the-middle anchor.” He illuminates the press’s contribution to our national divide. If Wallace is considered the middle, I thought it might explain why the bulk of the media is on the left. A median position rather than the average. If you’re genuinely balanced, you are open to various news sources. Chris Wallace appears to have avoided even his employer, Fox News, as a fount of news.

The Michigan case raised the possibility of entrapment. Fox had reported extensively on how the defense leaned heavily on the fact a key player was, in fact, a paid FBI informant. Fox and others said the FBI also had informants in the January 6 crowd. This information was in various court filings. Was Tucker Carlson wrong to question the FBI’s role given the Michigan case? 

Wallace seems unaware of this line of reasoning. Could this be a result of his relying on other news outlets? The left-leaning press mostly ignored the entrapment defense in the Michigan case. 

Having more information leads to better decisions. Being exposed to more ideas expand our choices. We all know this, so why do people cut themselves from data and ideas? When leaders do this, bad things can happen. We are now living the results of leaders acting with limited knowledge.

Presidents Putin and Biden are reluctant to allow diverse ideas and data in their inner circles. The consequences are all too evident in the current Ukraine War. Dictators almost always suffer from the absence of contrary views. If someone presents the correct information or course of action, they can be in prison or dead. These possible outcomes hardly encourage wide-ranging discussions.

Did anyone give Putin an accurate picture of the Russian military? Was it able to carry out the grand invasion plan? After the first two days, it was evident the answer was no. Somebody had to be aware of the military’s failings, but it never got through to Putin. The word is Putin is furious at his Generals, but would he have listened if they leveled with him? Would they even survive?