Posted on 12/06/2005 6:23:18 PM PST by AZ_Cowboy
Mike Wallace says President Bush is afraid to be interviewed by him. The 87-year old reporter for “60 Minutes” made the comment on MSNBC’s “Hardball” earlier this week, in an exchange with host Chris Matthews.
MATTHEWS: So why is the man in the oval office afraid of the man on “60 Minutes”? Mike, why is George W. the man in the White House afraid to interview you.
WALLACE: Because he pays attention strictly to Karl Rove and that’s why from the very beginning that Karl Rove will not permit him to sit down with me.
After seeing this, I can’t help but wonder why Mike Wallace is afraid of me. You see, I put in a request with Wallace’s publicist several weeks ago, asking him to come on www.nranews.com and my show “Cam and Company” to talk about his new book and his recent appearance at a fundraiser for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. At the time, I was told that Wallace wasn’t doing any more interviews. That’s apparently not the case, so I’m left to wonder why it is that Mr. Wallace won’t speak with me.
On one hand, perhaps it’s understandable. He’s managed to appear on a number of news and interview programs to promote his new book without once having to answer a question about the slap on the wrist he recently received from CBS News for his involvement with the gun control movement. Why ruin a good thing by actually discussing one of the less impressive moments in an impressive career?
Still, it’s awfully hypocritical for Wallace to accuse President Bush of running scared when he himself has some questions to answer. When Wallace appeared at the fundraiser for the Brady Center on September 28th of this year, he openly mocked the past president of the NRA, Charlton Heston. He disparaged gun owners in general, saying you couldn’t reason with the “legions of the already convinced”. He spoke of the money he gave to the Brady Center in exchange for his tickets to the fundraiser, and he ribbed his good friend Art Buchwald, who lent his name to the event (it was billed as a birthday celebration for the humorist). Why would Wallace do this? Wallace, who once said that he would watch soldiers die rather than warn them of an ambush in order to maintain his objectivity, threw away that objectivity for a cheap laugh at the expense of a man with Alzheimer’s and a few bucks for an organization that wants more gun control. The question I have for Mike Wallace is: was it worth it?
After I learned about Wallace’s appearance at the Brady Center fundraiser, I sent an email to Vaughn Ververs, the public editor of CBS’s Public Eye blog. I asked him if Wallace’s appearance and comments had violated any network rules. He followed up with both Wallace and Linda Mason, the senior vice president for standards at the news organization. Wallace never expressed any remorse for his appearance, and said the whole thing was meant to be a joke. According to Mason, the network policy states if someone has become identifiable with an issue, they are no longer allowed to report on that issue for CBS. After investigating, Linda Mason said the network says if Wallace suggests a story about gun control in the future, and the network determines there’s a conflict of interest, they will reject the story. As Ververs put it, “I take that to mean we won’t be seeing Mr. Wallace doing any more stories involving Second Amendment issues.” I’d like to think the network failed to see the humor in Wallace’s appearance as well.
Ververs did a tremendous job in bringing this story to light, but it’s a shame that he’s the only CBS employee willing to talk about this. Mike Wallace prides himself in asking tough questions, yet he’s unwilling to face questions about his own actions. Now that Wallace is making the rounds of TV shows again, I’ll be putting in another request to his publicist. Maybe this time Wallace will realize his hypocrisy. You can’t demand to interview the President as a journalist while you stonewall the media as a news figure.
All W has to do is take a meatloaf sandwich with him and he can have his way with Mike.
Bingo. You ARE Brilliant.
Sounds like the court case is screwed, is there a strategy for winning?
If so, don't mention what it is though.
That is a remarkably accurate description of those on the gun-grabbing side. They are convinced that criminals will abide by laws which seek to disarm them. That criminals regularly violate laws notwithstanding, for some strange and unknown reason, once disarmed, the criminals will remain so.
Does this mean that old relic, Mike Wallace, is still alive? Amazing. I thought he died years ago.
YES, and thanks for laying out some facts on this despicable senior.
mc
That would hurt having ask your son ask Prez of the US sit down for interview with the OLD MAN OUCH LOLOLOL!!!!!
It's octogenarian,Spelled with an O
Mike Wallace is the male version of Helen Thomas. Frozen out and ignored while he rants.
1st question: Are you a socialist.?..
2nd question: Are you a leftist.?..
3rd question: Are you a progressive.?..
4th question: At what age did you appreciate Karl Marx as NOT being raving MoonBat.?.
5th question: Why not a 60Min.; expose' on massive democrat party voter fraud.?..
6th question: How did you totally overlook Chinagate as possible TREASON.?..
7th question: Mike is America a democracy.?.
**Note:.. Each question to be commented on as 60min spins any interview to expose 60min as a leftist democrat party agitprop outlet..
If you were doing a story about a group of terrorists and found out they were about to ambush a busload of journalists would you simply report the event or try to warn them?
We already know what the answer would be if it were a busload of American soldiers......
I thought Mike Wallace was dead.
WALLACE: Because he pays attention strictly to Karl Rove and that’s why from the very beginning that Karl Rove will not permit him to sit down with me.
I'm sure that Chrissy or Mikey would never agree to be interviewed by their political enemies with said enemies in charge of editing the interview for broadcast.
Why would President Bush give them free reign to attack him, especially after Dan Rather and CBS crudely attacked both President Bush 41 and President Bush 43.
You don't have to be Karl Rove to figure that out!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.