If the answer didn't matter, I wouldn't have asked the question.

 

You challenged Wallace's professionalism ... I simply asked if you felt that way when he asked Clinton about bin Laden.

It's not the same thing.

OK, after 190 posts, let's see if I can summarize the debate:

 

1. Those on Bachmann's side are primarily upset because Wallace asked "Are you a flake?". It has nothing to with whether she is or isn't a flake, they are upset because she was asked a question that way and feel that Bachmann was treated unfairly. They feel she was not given proper respect and was treated differently than other presidential level candidates.

 

2. Those on Wallace's side feel Bachmann has made so many outlandish statements in the past that the question was not name calling but warranted by her own actions and comments. They say these past comments were so outlandish, the question was fair and/or it gave Bachmann an opportunity to address the comments and those that say she is a flake.

 

At this point in our discussion, I think Wallace's question was over the edge because it did come across in a name calling type of manner. I do think the issue of her past comments is fair game but Wallace should have perhaps phrased the question this way, "What would you say to those people who call some of your past statements flaky?"

 

If Wallace had asked the question in that manner, would we still have this controversy?

You nailed it and no we wouldn't be having this debate if he'd asked it the way you put it.

The question asked of Bachmann had nothing to do with her being a woman ... it's about the out-there comments she's made in the past.

The question itself had nothing to do with her being a woman, the fact that he showed no respect by even asking it in that manner likely had everything to do with it. It's bad journalism the way he did it. He knows it, that's probably a good portion of why he apologized.

The question itself had nothing to do with her being a woman, the fact that he showed no respect by even asking it in that manner likely had everything to do with it. It's bad journalism the way he did it. He knows it, that's probably a good portion of why he apologized.

Or maybe it was because a lot of Fox viewers, many of whom are sympathetic, raised a lot of heck about it.

Or maybe it was because a lot of Fox viewers, many of whom are sympathetic, raised a lot of heck about it.

Perhaps you missed the "a good portion" part of my comment. I didn't say it was the only reason.

Any good journalist would recognize what he did was out of line. I'm guessing he realized it.

Perhaps you missed the "a good portion" part of my comment. I didn't say it was the only reason.

Any good journalist would recognize what he did was out of line. I'm guessing he realized it.

I still don't see it as "out of line" ... if the Bachmann supporters and sympathizers see it that way, maybe they need to take a closer look at her history.

 

Then again, Wallace knows who his employer is, too.

I still don't see it as "out of line" ... if the Bachmann supporters and sympathizers see it that way, maybe they need to take a closer look at her history.

 

Then again, Wallace knows who his employer is, too.

Maybe your disdain for her is clouding your judgement. I'm neither a Bachmann supporter or sympathizer, I just know wrong when I see or hear it.

Maybe your disdain for her is clouding your judgement. I'm neither a Bachmann supporter or sympathizer, I just know wrong when I see or hear it.

Her history makes the question legitimate ... period.

Her history makes the question legitimate ... period.

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that it's poor journalism to do it in that fashion...period. Like I said, a good journalist knows it was wrong to word it that way. Rockmom was correct earlier on in the thread that he could have said it in a more professional way. If you disagree with that, than I have to believe your judgement is definitely clouded.

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that it's poor journalism to do it in that fashion...period. Like I said, a good journalist knows it was wrong to word it that way. Rockmom was correct earlier on in the thread that he could have said it in a more professional way. If you disagree with that, than I have to believe your judgement is definitely clouded.

 

 

Isn't this the same kind of journalism Fox News supports and promotes? Or is it only okay when they 'mistreat' liberal guests on their station?

Anyone else see the irony in a Fox News journalist 'mistreating' a Tea Party member and an MSNBC journalist insulting Obama?

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that it's poor journalism to do it in that fashion...period. Like I said, a good journalist knows it was wrong to word it that way. Rockmom was correct earlier on in the thread that he could have said it in a more professional way. If you disagree with that, than I have to believe your judgement is definitely clouded.

 

Two people agreed with me in one thread?! :eek:

 

Watch out world! We're spinning out of control! :lol:

To summarize:

 

We do not believe that Wallace was insulting her nor does he think she truly is a flake.

It could have been asked better.

He was trying to give her the chance to respond to critics.

No ill intentions. No "gotcha" Sarah Palin questions.

 

Yet we're still upset.

To summarize:

 

We do not believe that Wallace was insulting her nor does he think she truly is a flake.

It could have been asked better.

He was trying to give her the chance to respond to critics.

No ill intentions. No "gotcha" Sarah Palin questions.

 

Yet we're still upset.

 

 

That's what I see from my vantage point.

Isn't this the same kind of journalism Fox News supports and promotes? Or is it only okay when they 'mistreat' liberal guests on their station?

Examples?