Who Do You Trust?

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. 

On the other hand, jurors were impressed by the entrapment defense. The recently concluded trial of four alleged Michigan case plotters ended with a hung jury for two and outright acquittal for the other two. This outcome vindicates Tucker Carlson for raising entrapment and asking for disclosure of the FBI’s January 6 involvement.  

If this were the first time Wallace evidenced a narrow view that excluded pertinent information, it wouldn’t be significant. However, look at when Wallace moderated the first 2020 Presidential debate. Right-leaning media reported on Joe and Hunter Biden’s Ukraine activities while Joe was vice-president as possible influence peddling. The mainstream press mostly downplayed it as not having a “smoking gun.” Trump asked the Ukrainian president to look into it while discussing arms shipments resulting in impeachment.

News of emails on a Hunter Biden laptop illuminating the Biden family influence-peddling schemes had surfaced before the debate. These reports made it a likely topic. However, when Trump tried to bring it up in the discussion, Wallace cut him off and moved on to another issue.

It was chaotic on the stage that night, but the possibility of one of the candidates being corrupt seemed a fair game. A couple of weeks later, the New York Post published emails from the laptop seemingly confirming Joe Biden’s involvement in his son’s activities. Wallace joined the mainstream media’s skepticism as to the story’s validity. Facebook and Twitter banned links to the story. More than fifty former intelligence officials claimed it “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian disinformation operation.” They offered not one shred of evidence to support their position.

In the second debate, Joe Biden repeated the Russian operation claim to deflect the story. This position caused Tony Bobulinski, part of an email chain, from the laptop to produce corresponding emails and provide context. Joe was “the Big Guy” in for a cut of one of Hunters Deals. Bobulinski was to head up the company so he would know. Ironically, he told much of his story on Fox’s Tucker Carlson Show.  

In the face of the lack of denials to the laptop’s ownership by the Bidens and no contradictory evidence, Bobulinski’s evidence backed up the NY Post’s story. After a year and a half, the New York Times and others belatedly confirmed the Ny Posts story. The possibility of a DOJ investigation coming to light seems to have forced their hands. Yet, the mainstream media and Wallace failed to change their non-coverage of possible Biden corruption. Had they just sat down with Bobulinski and then asked the Bidens to deny his evidence, they would’ve known this before the election.

Despite slamming the laptop story on his Fox News Sunday, Wallace, to date, hasn’t personally set the account straight. This behavior recalls his treatment of Trump’s covid advisor, Dr. Scott Atlas. Even though the Doctor had appeared numerous times on Fox News before and after his appointment and identified as a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Wallace continually referred to him as a radiologist with no credentials to participate in covid policy.

Wallace could’ve googled the Hoover Institution to find his biography, identifying him as a medical policy expert. In my Covid 19 series, I wrote that we needed a person with this skill set to balance covid with economic, educational, and other medical considerations. Did Wallace not watch Fox News, or was he too sloppy to look into the person he mocked? Was bias at work?

These types of errors are problematic with much of media today. Rather than peruse a wide variety of information sources, too many only rely on those inside their respective bubbles. 

The job of a journalist is to tell the whole story. Someone else may have a better idea or data. I’m picking on Chris Wallace because so many hold him up as a paragon of balance and fairness when he seems to limit his sources of information. 

As a lowly blogger, I start my day with morning emails from the NY Times, the Dispatch, and the Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal follows. I am reading the Week balanced with the National Review, The Washinton Examiner, and Reason. The local paper mirrors USA Today. Smart-News fills in gaps. Some CNN offsetting Fox. At times, I may disagree with each, but at least I’m aware of all sides. My disagreements with Tucker Carlson, most recently in Ukraine, are based on his position. I recommend a similar program to Chris Wallace and other so-called journalists. Maybe the public will begin to trust you again.

As for Chris Wallace, he signed on with CNN+. Given its lack of subscribers, he’s vanished. Is it karma?

One thought on “Who Do You Trust?

  1. Such an important blog…… can every mailbox get a copy, please??? It feels cathartic to me that a “lowly blogger”, as you refer to yourself, is picking up this narrative and espousing on it. It ties into everything. The moral? Look at all sides before forming an opinion. Why in the world would any reasonable person not?

    Like

Leave a Reply to dfjp Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s