“He said that was the rap on her from OTHER people and he asked her straight out.”
The “OTHER people” approach to questioning is cowardly and allows the questioner to ask/imply that there’s something there. The best way to handle that approach is easy, simple and cuts it off at the knees. She should have looked Wallace in the eye and said, “Who, Chris? I want names.” If Wallace doesn’t provide them, case closed. If he does, the names will indicate an agenda on the part of the name caller. Easy.
Don’t accept the premise that the media provides. Challenge them at every opportunity.
Sorry for replying to myself but I wanted to provide an example of challenging the media and its “other people are saying” approach.
Prior to the Steelers-Ravens divisional playoff game in January, Rich Eisen of NFL films tried to use the “some people are saying” approach to journalism and Deion Sanders wouldn’t let him get away with it. The result is hilarious.
Skip to 1:54.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/09000d5d81d9507a/Ravens-vs-Steelers-preview
You posted the numero uno comment on this thread.....and the most cogent.
Wallace's question was framed utilizing a technique of master propagandists the world over. He is no neophyte, learning cunning interrogation techniques growing up at the knee of his leftist television muckraker father, Mike Wallace.
Chris Wallace's question was deliberately planned and designed to trap her no matter how she answered or did not answer.....and it worked with a lot of folks, some of them here.
It's remarkable that posters are getting all bogged down in the minutia of the Q & A, ranging all over the place, parsing this and parsing that.
What is paramount here is the fact that trained TV leftists like Wallace know exactly what they're doing....he didn't "blurt" anything out, and his "apology" is an integral part of his carefully-planned attack gig. We will be seeing more of this in the months leading to the primaries.
I'm not a Palin supporter or detractor at this time. However, I respect that she has assumed the difficult mantle of being both a candidate and a target of the Left.
She was correct in her response to her interrogator. Ignore him. He showed no respect to a candidate in a free society.
However, it's important to know that though he may be classless, he's NOT clueless. He knew exactly what he was doing.
Therefore, his bluff should be called and he should name names of those who "called her a flake". He should be challenged. However, in this case, let OTHERS, not Bachman, put him in a corner. She has to keep moving ahead.
Conservative candidates have to be alert to trained lefty operatives like Chris Wallace during the course of the campaign. I'm pretty sure they are. He won't be the first to pull a stunt like this.
IMO, Rep. Bachman won this encounter in the long run. Wallace always had that uppity veneer that made him look "above" bias, yellow journalism and hack-ism. That veneer has now been severely cracked. His professionalism has taken a blow, make no mistake. I'm sure he knows it, too.
Leni