-
Competing at The Cliburn
April 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
They’ve Got Mail
April 8, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Nailing French Jell-O to the Wall
October 16, 2012 | 6 comments
-
Were You Thinking What I Was Thinking?
August 17, 2012 | 43 comments
-
The NFL Goes Bounty Hunting
March 12, 2012 | 50 comments
In Memoriam
Mike Wallace: Cheesy or Riveting or Both?
More than his share of compromises will taint his reputation as a no-holds-barred interviewer.
With the possible exception of the egregious Geraldo Rivera, I cannot think of another television interviewer who has stirred emotions quite the way Mike Wallace did. I knew him slightly, sat for an interview that was never broadcast, and witnessed his strengths and weaknesses.
Heavenly praise and hellish condemnation always flowed in his wake, and his death at 93 on April 7 prompted a renewed flood of reaction. The admiration is over the top. Much of the hatred is unprintable.
Although retired since 2006, his death has prompted a divided public to give him one last word, pro and con.
The takedown artists let him have it:
“Good riddance to his ilk — the dinosaurs are dying off,” shouted one blogger.
A master of “cheesy ambush interviews,” wrote another.
One amateur observer thanked another for “reminding me for all the reasons I despised him.”
“Repulsive, narcissistic, condescending,” said another.
And praise from such barometers as the New York Times was loaded in the opposite direction. He was a “paragon of television journalism” who could be “riveting” to watch.
He had a “glorious career” of “great interviewing moments,” said the Washington Post.
In fact, many journalists mistrusted him for failing to pay to his dues. He never worked on a weekly or daily in the smalltime world of reporting. He never did time in Los Gatos, California, like I did, learning how to keep yourself out of a story or the basics of objectivity. He came from the very unjournalistic world of quiz shows — hardly the classic route.
He jumped the queue much the way Anderson Cooper has at CNN, “making it up as I go along,” as Cooper once put it. Real journalists are resentful, and not just about the salaries.
Like Cooper’s record, Wallace’s is a mix of good and bad, magnified by the power of television. Wallace won 21 Emmys and was the lead interviewer on 60 Minutes for 40 years. Cooper has a long way to go, but will probably end up an icon of sorts, too, if he can stay out of trouble.
Perhaps Wallace’s shortcut to fame at CBS News accounts for his many lapses. How could a real journalist schmooze with the “Queen of Mean,” Leona Helmsley? How could he pull his punches in the Brown & Williamson investigation of spiked nicotine? How could he use his weapons on an icon such as Oscar Hammerstein and nail him for “excessive sentimentality”? How could he produce such a limp interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
And how could he fault beleaguered Soviet Jews in the 1970s for “breaking the law” in Russia?
Quartermaster| 4.16.12 @ 7:43AM
Like Dan Rather, the man was not to be trusted. While I regret the death of any man, Wallace needed to go before he started.
drudge ette obama| 4.16.12 @ 8:20AM
Mike Wallace thought we were gullible and edited 60 Minutes accordingly. His son, Chris Wallace, can't manage an interview with a lefty like Axelrod, but sure knows how to go after the Santorums of the world. Chris learned well from his father, god rest his soul.
By the way, I stopped watching 60 minutes when they put that smothering voice Diane Sawyer on. It was just too much to take.
Teaghan| 4.16.12 @ 10:02AM
After hearing his interview with his son on FOX news Sunday played yesterday, he was clearly just another nasty socialist. RIP Mr Wallace.
ps I thought he did an okay job with Axelrod. I've never heard so many "ahh, ah, ahhhh, ah, ha" obama's man was not on game for this interview. Such defensivness!
Anthony| 4.16.12 @ 5:08PM
60 Minutes was "old" in the '80s, when I finally stopped watching these sclerotic old leftists ply their trade.
megapotamus| 4.16.12 @ 6:10PM
I'm not sure what interview you were watching but I thought Axe got his head handed to him and not in display condition. Then, Ed Gillespie who got the same level of aggression but prevailed over Axe if not Wallace, having actual answers to share. The worst of the Mike Wallace Experience came with the disgusting spectacle of son interviewing dad. Let's see, who was worse? The product of clear nepotism who was adopted at Fox while NO ONE to the right of Walter Mondale could ever hope to draw a dime from Wallace or his network, or the greybeard mawkishly flaunting his bias before the friendliest interviewer one could invent? Gee dad, what do you think about those stupid, mean old worthless Conservatives that now butter my bread? Son, they are the next thing to savages. Why, they think we reporters are all wild-eyed commies! But no, we are patriots. Yes, we love America, more than those troglodytes that is for sure. Well dad, what kind of commie are you? Whose side were you on in the Viet Nam war? In the Cold War? In the Iraq, Afghan and related wars? If you are not a commie, what are you then? Is there a word for it? Now son, you know the answers to all that and why I can't give any. You'll edit all that out, right? Ah, just kidding dad. We aren't even rolling!
Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 2:04PM
Wallace stated that he would let American troops get killed rather warn thembecause his job was to report the story first and be an American second. The Marine colonel who was also in the interview stated that part of the problem is that his troops would be ordered, in such a situation, if Wallace got in trouble, to rescue his worthless ass and risk their lives.
Wallace was also well known for being a terrorist sympathiser and a hater of his own Jewish people. His cowardice on the Haiti situation was to be expected.
A worthless, Liberal, scumbag loser. Like Bob Schieffer, after whom the TCU Journo school is named (he is a Frog alum). Why is reporting leftist? Because Journo school profs are scum.
Pelleas| 4.16.12 @ 2:35PM
"... a hater of his own Jewish people..."
Some VERIFIABLE proof of that accusation, por favor--??
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.12 @ 2:52PM
"And how could he fault beleaguered Soviet Jews in the 1970s for 'breaking the law' in Russia?"
I remember that interview, too.
loulou| 4.16.12 @ 6:14PM
Obviously you've never listened to Mike Wallace.
Pelleas| 4.16.12 @ 7:47PM
Loulou:
OK--I'm GAME..
Let's assume I NEVER heard Mike Wallace before---
PLEASE supply me with at least ONE anti-jewish/ self-hating comment that Wallace made , for public attribution..
OK??
Occam's Tool| 10.16.12 @ 5:36PM
The slamming of the Soviet Jews, Pelleas.
gearjammer| 4.16.12 @ 8:01AM
Just another pretty face.
cvrgrl| 4.16.12 @ 11:56AM
no, cheezy (and dishonest)
but
his son is all class, let's all
hope he does not sell out
Trinacria| 4.16.12 @ 3:21PM
All class? Yes, quite - like yesterday's interview when he asked Ed Gillespie if Romney supported Arizona's new law that "allows officials to pull anyone over and ask them to produce their papers"...
Yeah, he's a real gem; a veritable fountain of journalistic integrity. It's clear that he learned well at the foot of the master.
Anthony| 4.16.12 @ 5:30PM
"So let me ask you,... are you a flake? Chris Wallace to Michelle Bachmann. Then, the coward hightailed it out of town on vacation and offered a "kiss my ass" apology to upset FOX viewers.
The rotten apple didn't fall far from the tree.
Steve| 4.16.12 @ 8:07AM
One part standard issue lefty, one part hypocrite (am I being redundant?), one part snark, and one part soggy sack of s**t. Mix well; splatter on television screen. Ah, Mr. Wallace; alas, we knew ye all too well.
oldfart| 4.16.12 @ 8:34AM
I have always believed that Chris Wallace is a far better reporter than his father. I also don't like to speak ill of the dead but after his stint on 60 minutes I came believe that Mike was not a reporter but a cheap shot artist who had limited interested in an informative interview, just 'gotcha', ambush journalism.
Vern Crisler| 4.16.12 @ 11:41AM
Yeah, that's why I never could stand to watch 60 (long) Minutes. I hate gotcha journalism, which is not really journalism but entertainment (for some).
Seek| 4.16.12 @ 2:11PM
Would that designation include Andrew Breitbart? For the sake of consistency, one hopes so.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.12 @ 2:55PM
Breitbart always made all the unedited tape available for review. What you saw was what you got. Wallace and 60 Minutes, on the other hand, carefully edited their videos to get the results they wanted, and never released the unedited, raw tape. And that is why, over the years, more and more people interviewed by 60 Minutes (and the press generally) have insisted on making their own recordings of any interviews. I even do this myself, after seeing my remarks mangled into incomprehensibility, either through malice, or (more likely) incompetence.
Buck| 4.16.12 @ 8:33PM
Right on, I completely agree. I haven't watched 60 minutes since the 80s'.
Vern Crisler| 4.16.12 @ 3:53PM
I don't know, did he practice gotcha journalism?
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.12 @ 7:04PM
Breitbart's usual MO was to provide rope and then sit back and watch liberal stooges hang themselves. Witness the recent video of one of his covert minions presenting himself at the home voting precinct of Attorney General Eric Holder AS Eric Holder. The poll worker asks if they have an Eric Holder on the rolls, another poll worker says yes. Brietbart's plant then says, very clearly, "I don't have any ID on me", to which the poll worker replies, "No problem". The plant then continues, "It's right in the car. . . I can go get it. . . no problem", to which the poll workers continue to reassure him its no big deal. Finally, he says he's not comfortable voting without showing ID, says he'll come back, and leaves.
Notice, he never tried to force the poll workers to let him vote--quite the contrary. Nor did he break the law by casting a fraudulent vote. But he made it very clear that had he wanted to do so, the poll workers were no impediment to vote fraud. That's not "gotcha" journalism, nor is it an ambush interview. It's just plain, unadulterated investigative journalism presented in the form of a theatrical set piece. Also note, the uncut video was made available to the public, to ensure no funny business in the editing room, such as was recently performed by NBC and ABC news in the Zimmerman Case.
Teaghan| 4.16.12 @ 11:40PM
The kid is good.
Keep exposing them Mr O'Keefe!
KyMouse| 4.16.12 @ 8:43AM
Wasn't it Mike Wallace and his "60 Minutes" crew who stood by while Jack "Dr. Death" Kevorkian helped a man kill himself on the air?
All of this makes me want to re-rent "Broadcast News" and "Network."
artinocala| 4.16.12 @ 9:30AM
Am I the only one tired of the plaudits and fawning over the reportorial career of Mike Wallace? No. This article says it better than I could. However, I proceed: Most of the folks who just drooled out their fondness for Wallace, I believe, down deep had little respect for his type of journalism. I don't. When his son asked him why he tried to embarrass Johnny Carson and Shirley MacLaine, he answered with sarcasm that these folks knew what kind of guy he was and weren't subpoened to meet with him. They did know but figured he wouldn't try to raise his creds by stepping on the face of the interviewee.
I will always remember his shanghai of Gen. William Westmoreland in 1982, when he knew Vietnam was a true sore spot in America with many lingering horrible memories, and Westmoreland was merely the officer in the field answering to the demands of McNamara and President Johnson. I can see it now, as if I had just watched, the closeup of the general, so close you could see into the poors on his face and the perspiration. I've met the general's wife and daughter, and their surname Westmoreland will be remembered as the humiliation of a career soldier who dedicated his life to protecting those practicing destructive journalism. It would be interesting to see the outtakes from that interview that never made it to “60 Minutes.”
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.12 @ 2:57PM
While what Wallace did to Westmoreland was indeed libelous, in all truth, Westy was an incompetent promoted way past his abilities, and was out of his depth from day one at MACV. His inability to learn from his mistakes stands in marked contrast to the performance of General David Petraeus.
Vern Crisler| 4.16.12 @ 3:54PM
I disagree with this assessment. Johnson and his advisers were the real problem, not Westmoreland.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.12 @ 5:54PM
Westmoreland told them what they wanted to hear, lacked the integrity to resign if he disagreed with their policies, and simply refused to adapt to the reality on the ground. An artilleryman to his very bone, he was wedded to the concept of the "Big War", always tried to leverage U.S. firepower supremacy, and scoffed at the counter-insurgency, small-war gurus. But when Creighton Abrams took over, and implemented precisely those small war policies that Westmoreland disdained, the U.S. managed to pacify most of South Vietnam, turn over the defense of the country to the ARVN, and also to repel a major NVA offensive in the Spring of 1972, using ARVN ground troops almost exclusively, supported by a surge in American airpower.
A similar surge of airpower in 1975 would have defeated the North Vietnamese offensive that eventually conquered South Vietnam, an ally whom the Democratic Congress of the United States shamefully abandoned in contravention of international agreements and guarantees signed by the United States and pledged with our sacred honor. Not a noble chapter in the history of this country.
Vern Crisler | 4.16.12 @ 10:13PM
You should read Steven Hayward's *The Age of Reagan* wherein he discusses the Johnson Administration's handling of the Vietnam War, and how Westmoreland could have easily won it after the Tet offensive. But the Johnson strategy was not to win.
nathan| 4.17.12 @ 10:15AM
I'm sorry I'm going to disagree here. There is so much myth about Vietnam. After Ia Drang, some three years before Tet, three years before the famous Chronkite broadcast, Johnson asked McNamara who was in Europe at the time to come home via Vietnam and report on the situation which he dutifully did.
His report was along these lines. We are going to lose so get out and get out now. Quit putting names on the wall. We can add more troops to the fray but it will only delay the inevitable.
Johnson ignored him. He shouldn't have. He should have ended our involvement then and there. There was an old saying that Ho, who had asked for our help in the early 50's against the French, he was willing to expend a million people to reunite the country. We were not willing to expend 100,000 to stop him.
But keep in mind, Ho's major concern was never us, it was the Chinese. Kennedy, who made so many mistakes, the Bay of Pigs to name just one of many, had no business continuing our involvement there. (Remember the Berlin Wall the backdrop for one of Kennedy's most famous speeches, was built during during Kennedy's time, not before.) Neoconservatism at its very worst. It was totally irrelevant what happened in Vietnam. No national interest was ever at stake there. None. Ho wasn't part of the global communist conspiracy. Again, his biggest concern was the Chinese to the north, the ancient enemies of these people.
As was so often the case in the post war period and as we see now, we lacked an understanding of what we were getting into, didn't understand the local situation. And paid dearly for that lack of understanding.
Edward Landsdale, acting for Kennedy, so brilliant in the Philippines, was just so horribly out of his element in Vietnam. Backing a man whose sanity was open to question. But we saw this in Korea. Rhee was by any account far from being a model democrat.
We really need to look back on those days and try to take the right lessons from those involvements and what those lessons tend to be is DON'T get involved.
Stuart Koehl| 4.17.12 @ 10:10PM
How interesting. Another work of fiction from Robert (the) Strange McNamara.
Indy| 4.16.12 @ 9:34AM
Blackfive's take on Wallace
Journalism before our troops, that was Wallace
http://www.blackfive.net/main/.....llace.html
Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 2:10PM
Indy:
Here it is, and my thanks to Blackfive. I have had repeated interactions with journalists in my career as a physician: the overwhelming majority of them are scum.
"Yeah it's the polite thing to say [Mike Wallace RIP---OT], but honestly I wonder whether he deserves it based on his grotesque statement regarding the ethics of filming American troops being slaughtered. He and Peter Jennings were on a show (the video is #7) about the ethics of war and were asked if they would accompany our enemies and report from their perspective. Both said yes, and then they were asked what they would do if the enemy set up an ambush and they saw American troops about to walk into it. Jennings said he would do what he could to warn them, well at least initially. Wallace on the other hand said he would have just rolled film and made sure to get the story.
Ogletree turned for reaction to Mike Wallace, who immediately replied. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as another story they were there to cover." A moment later Wallace said, "I am astonished, really." He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American" (at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship). "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story."
Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot?
"No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"
Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said: "I chickened out." Jennings said that he had "played the hypothetical very hard."He had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached.
As Jennings said he agreed with Wallace, several soldiers in the room seemed to regard the two of them with horror. Retired Air Force General Brent Scowcroft, who would soon become George Bush's National Security Advisor, said it was simply wrong to stand and watch as your side was slaughtered. "What's it worth?" he asked Wallace bitterly. "It's worth thirty seconds on the evening news, as opposed to saving a platoon."
After a brief discussion between Wallace and Scowcroft, Ogletree reminded Wallace of Scowcroft's basic question. What was it worth for the reporter to stand by, looking? Shouldn't the reporter have said something ?
Wallace gave a disarming grin, shrugged his shoulders, and said, "I don't know." He later mentioned extreme circumstances in which he thought journalists should intervene. But at that moment he seemed to be mugging to the crowd with a "Don't ask me!"expression, and in fact he drew a big laugh—the first such moment in the discussion.
So watching American troops killed is just a day at the office and a big old laugh, eh Mike? Reminds me of another journalist named Mike, but that is another story, soon to grace this site. Then the worm turned and a man who knows what honor and ethics truly mean spoke.
A few minutes later Ogletree turned to George M. Connell, a Marine colonel in full uniform. Jaw muscles flexing in anger, with stress on each word, Connell said, "I feel utter contempt."
Two days after this hypothetical episode, Connell said, Jennings or Wallace might be back with the American forces—and could be wounded by stray fire, as combat journalists often had been before. When that happens, he said, they are "just journalists." Yet they would expect American soldiers to run out under enemy fire and drag them back, rather than leaving them to bleed to death on the battlefield.
"I'll do it!" Connell said. "And that is what makes me so contemptuous of them. Marines will die going to get . . . a couple of journalists." The last words dripped disgust.
And drip they should, as the true colors of these two guilds were revealed by respected practitioners of each. Then the issue gained some perspective from an interesting source.
Not even Ogletree knew what to say. There was dead silence for several seconds. Then a square-jawed man with neat gray hair and aviator glasses spoke up. It was Newt Gingrich, looking a generation younger and trimmer than he would when he became speaker of the House, in 1995. One thing was clear from this exercise, Gingrich said. "The military has done a vastly better job of systematically thinking through the ethics of behavior in a violent environment than the journalists have."'
That's Mike Wallace. Scumbag, and traitor to country by his own admission. Rest in filth.
W| 4.16.12 @ 4:20PM
I agree, OT and Trinicaria.
Herb| 4.17.12 @ 12:00AM
At that moment, didn't Wallace turn to the Marine colonel and say that he expected the Americans to rescue him because "after all, I'm still a citizen"?
Look up Kimberly Bergalis, innocent AIDS victim, and the savage hit piece 60 Minutes did on her for her political incorrectness, and Mike Wallace's clenched-teeth apology.
What makes him morally different from Jane Fonda, this Vietnam vet doesn't know.
artinocala| 4.16.12 @ 9:41AM
I've read the other comments and find them more pithy than mine. A thought came to me: Perhaps what really bothers me about the (apparent) b.s. issued by the pundits, Brit Hume, O'Reilly et al, is not so much the man they idolize, but themselves, who pretend to like the fellow traveler. They are the ones I'll not believe again. They are the hypocrites.
Mike Hawk| 4.16.12 @ 10:04AM
Wallace was cheezy. A friend of mine was interviewed by him years ago and after they sliced and diced and rearranged the footage he came out saying the direct opposite of what he had told Wallace. He refused any further contact with those people after that. Those SOBs twist the truth till it is unrecognizable.
loulou| 4.16.12 @ 12:16PM
Cheezy is the least of it.
Mike Wallace was a self-hating Jew who hated Israel. I always wonder about people like that.
Pelleas| 4.16.12 @ 2:44PM
"Mike Wallace was a self-hating Jew who hated Israel. I always wonder about people like that."
PROOF of that accusation...PLEASE...!
Ya can't JUST call someone an "anti-semite" at the drop of a hat, ya know-- AND EVEN IF he didn't fawn over the actions going on in Israel ( again-- you need to provide verifiable proof of your claim)--Which I honestly don't recall him ever doing- Negative feeling towards Israel does NOT make one a "self-hating Jew", in the slightest!
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.12 @ 2:59PM
Whistling past the graveyard, Pelleas?
Pelleas| 4.16.12 @ 3:18PM
Stuart:
I may be slightly extra befuddled than usual, today- but I don't "get" what your comment is hinting at---explain, please?
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.12 @ 5:57PM
I referred you the first time to Wallace's story in the mid-1970s on the plight of Soviet Jews (mentioned in the body of the story), in which he essentially blamed the Jews for breaking Soviet laws. This had nothing at all to do with Israel--though there's a pretty good correlation between failure to support Israel and Jewish self-loathing.
Face up--the man was a toad.
megapotamus| 4.16.12 @ 6:19PM
The era of the refuseniks, that is, those Jews who were denied emigration to Israel, was a disgrace even by Soviet standards. Nathan Sharansky was imprisoned for something on a decade for no crime but wanting to leave the commie hellhole the New Deal and subsequent Democrats have tried to recreate here. I did not realize Wallace was a Jew which makes his disgraceful conduct and vapid coverage all the more sickening.
Pelleas| 4.16.12 @ 7:57PM
The man MIGHT have been a toad... I never thought strongly, one way or the other about him, as I found him sort of cipher-ish, vis-a vis the rest of the stellar CBS News staff, from the "golden -age"
HOWEVER.. I have huge issue with your opinion that there is a "pretty good correlation between failure to support Israel and Jewish self loathing"--I have NOTHING but pride in my Jewishness- and have actually lived in Israel for a decade or so, AND still have very vexing and conflicted feelings about most of Israeli government policy, both towards the Jewish majority, and towards the Arab and Palestianian populations--at present, it is harder and harder for me to support the State , as it currently exisits
Pelleas| 4.16.12 @ 8:24PM
BTW--
I did think the "refusnik" story was not one of the feathers in CBS's cap, as I was personally familiar with the pretty dismal situation in the Jewish communities in Moscow and Leningrad of those times--BUT-- I din't get a sense of self-hate, or anti-semitism, in his reports--just flat out shoddy, uninformed "journalism"
Trinacria| 4.16.12 @ 8:55PM
I dunno, a suicide attempt might be interpreted as an indication of self hate...
By the way, congratulations on your pride. I've always preferred to be proud of things that I've accomplished (rather than accidents of birth). But that's just me...
Pelleas| 4.16.12 @ 9:22PM
Trinarcria:
You just won the SNARKY COMMENT OF THE DAY AWARD...!-- hope yer proud of that..lol!
Herb| 4.17.12 @ 12:02AM
Truth hurts, eh, Pelleas?
;^)
Pelleas| 4.17.12 @ 12:31AM
Herb:
I wouldn't know about the "Truth"... if I had to rely on reading this site!
Therefore, i feel no pain... but a sort of sadness, reading such unwarranted and unexplained bitterness and hatreds
Not Special Ops Bill| 4.16.12 @ 10:28AM
60 Minutes, among others, has reported that the libel case brought against him by Gen. Alexander Haig was "dismissed," and that during the pendency of that case, before the "dismissal," Wallace attempted suicide. The timing of the suicide attempt suggests something other than a lack of fault.
So was the case dismissed, or was it settled? Dismissal would hint that Wallace was innocent of any wrongdoing, while settlement would indicate that there was something to Haig's claim.
So which was it?
Not Special Ops Bill| 4.16.12 @ 10:30AM
Westmoreland, not Haig. I was too quick on the keyboard. Please excuse the error.
W| 4.16.12 @ 10:50AM
I recall there was some half assed settlement where nobody admitted anything and there was no clear cut winner. There is a good book by Renata Adler on the defamation suits by Ariel Sharon and Westmoreland. Do not remember all the details except that Sharon was more agressive in the suit than Westomoreland.
Vern Crisler| 4.16.12 @ 11:45AM
All I remember is that TV Guide ran an article called "Anatomy of a Smear"--which I thought was one of the best article in that magazine I'd ever read. I wondered how such a "conservative" piece ever got into TV Guide, and decided that the smear of Westmoreland was too egregious even for some liberals.
W| 4.16.12 @ 12:25PM
I believe the founder of TV guide was a conservative, and supporter of Nixon and Reagan.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.12 @ 3:02PM
Settled before going to the jury. Each side paid its own legal fees, CBS did not issue a retraction or apology, no money changed hands, nobody benefited but the lawyers.
Crassus| 4.16.12 @ 11:34AM
If there had been no Mike Wallace we wouldn't have the likes of Geraldo Rivera, Jerry Springer, and Maury Povich gracing our airwaves right now. Wallace was the grandpappy of ambush journalism. Rivera, Springer, and the like are nothing but mutations of Wallace.
Sonny Boy Chris is no better than pops.
loulou| 4.16.12 @ 12:15PM
Yep, both are hacks. At least Mike was good looking. Chris--not so much.
megapotamus| 4.16.12 @ 6:21PM
Phil Donohue has more of that blood on his hands.
Bugs| 4.16.12 @ 1:02PM
"60 Minutes" was infotainment - it was about drama, not truth. Understanding that, I can forgive Wallace his less-than-journalistic moments. The business about letting American soldiers die, however...not so much. He did serve in the Navy in WWII, but didn't see combat. He also never did any combat journalism.
Trinacria| 4.16.12 @ 6:40PM
"He also never did any combat journalism."
He never did any journalism, period.
Trinacria| 4.16.12 @ 3:29PM
May the soul of that snarky self-important son of a bitch rest in peace.
megapotamus| 4.16.12 @ 6:26PM
It was the later imitator, 20/20 which heaped disgrace on TV news magazines generally. The Food Lion fraud and the side-saddle gas tank special effects were criminal acts worthy of jail time and lethal civil awards but no, the impugners of better men (which constitute a clear majority) enjoy teflon suits and ties. Dan Rather is the only high ranking figure ever to be held remotely accountable. Wallace managed to elide responsibility or even the plain spoken truth about himself unto a natural death. That is sad indeed. If there is a lesson here and there is, it is don't forgive and don't forget.
Trinacria| 4.16.12 @ 6:39PM
Not that I disagree with your views on 20/20, but I believe it was Dateline (NBC) that deserves "credit" for the exploding gas tank bit (I know, shocking, isn't it? Who would have ever guessed that the bastion of journalistic integrity that doctored the George Zimmerman 911 tapes would rig a car to explode in order to create a story?).
Roadmaster| 4.16.12 @ 9:06PM
I have to admit, I enjoyed the article infinitely more than any ambush interview of Mike Wallace's. I cannot recall when I last watched 60 minutes - maybe 1992 or thereabouts.
Douglas| 4.16.12 @ 11:46PM
Youtube has the 1957 videotape of Wallace's interview with Margaret Sanger. If that doesn't make your bloodmruncold nothing will. Pure evil. I thank Wallace for conducting this revealing piece of history.
Herb| 4.17.12 @ 12:05AM
Wallace interviewing Samger is one liberal savaging another. Bring the popcorn, fun to watch.
May the rocks fall on them. Good riddance to both.
POST American| 4.19.12 @ 12:45PM
In this the undeniable 11th hour
of the CFR---RED China handover,
takedown, TREASON and EUGENICS
OP ----one MUST ask --did Wallace
EVER take on the deadly foundations?
--NGO's? ---and/or world Globalism
and USURY establishment generally?
NO ONE in the business who NEVER
took on the capstone has ANY REAL
claim to having fearlessly spoken
TRUTH to POWER.
---NO ONE!
That includes even the late Hitchens.
"Understand, TOTALITARIANISM
means you can NOT use their system
to beat them."
-Informed online yesterday
AMEN
And so, everything OLD is
NEW---Remberg ---AGAIN!
-----------------BRAND NEW!