Chris Wallace likes to put out the vibe that he’s objective, but he said something in his critique of Michelle Obama’s speech last night that was just cringeworthy:
Here is how Fox News anchor Chris Wallace reacted to #MichelleObama speech last night #DNCConvention #DNC2020 pic.twitter.com/Ku3z5YCVWN
— Amaka Ubaka (@AmakaUbakaTV) August 18, 2020
Here’s a short transcript:
Michelle Obama, as she said, doesn’t like politics and she said that this speech is her main contribution to the Biden campaign.
It was a heck of a contribution. She really flayed, sliced and diced Donald Trump, talking about the chaos and confusion and lack of empathy, especially coming from this president and this White House, spoke more about the deficits of Donald Trump than the pluses of Joe Biden, but did talk about especially, not so much policies, but especially his empathy and what he has been through and his care for average Americans.
The Hill notes that Wallace went on to say “This was a very effective speech.”
I don’t have an issue with Wallace talking about the effectiveness of the speech. But good grief, the way he reacted to her speech you’d think he had a chill running up and down his leg. He literally said “She really flayed, sliced and diced Donald Trump, talking about the chaos and confusion and lack of empathy, especially coming from this president and this White House.” And he did so excitedly, glowingly.
You could just tell that he was absolutely enamored by the speech and was no longer just an objective newser.
In contrast I like what Brit Hume said in response to Michelle Obama’s speech, which was far more objective in my opinion (skip ahead to 2:52):
Here’s what he said:
She was very good. She’s a very good speaker. For someone who doesn’t like politics she certainly is good at it. And I don’t dispute anything my colleagues have said here about how effective the speech was.
But it’s a noteworthy fact that the way we view these things, that we’re talking here about the style and some broad themes. We’re not talking about the specifics of what she said which was absolutely laced with distortions and exaggerations.
But that’s what we expect in political rhetoric, that’s the way you do it. So the question becomes, not the actual truthfulness of the case that’s made, but how effectively it’s delivered and whether the attacks are likely to have the effect on the electorate that she hopes for. I suspect in this case, that probably it did.
Even as understated as Hume’s response was, I’ll take it over Wallace’s exuberant “she really flayed, sliced and diced Donald Trump” any day of the week. At least Hume was honest about the lack of truth in her speech, some of which we highlighted earlier today.