Colbert Fact Checks Chris Wallace, Apparently it Takes an Entertainer to do a Journalist's Job

Specifically, the part in the video (below) at 5:45, where Chris Wallace takes a line from the anti-immigrant playbook and says that only 10% of asylum seekers return for their hearing, and only 10% percent are given asylum. When Colbert asks his producers to fact check that, and says “hey this interview is gonna go for a while and by the time it’s over they’ll have the results.” As soon as it becomes clear that this stat is getting checked, Chris immediately starts backpedaling, saying “I might be wrong about the first part, but it is a fact that only 10% percent are given asylum.” Which is true, but who gives a shit?

Later, in the next vid (also below) Stephen gets the numbers back. It’s actually more like 70 FUCKING PERCENT of asylum seekers show up for their hearing. At which point Chris says “Oh but what does it say underneath there? See? 10% are given asylum.” But once again, WHO GIVES A SHIT?! In another context? Sure. But nobody’s doubting that.

What we’re doubting is the first part. The part where you LIED. Sure you didn’t lie about the second part. The FIRST part is what gets people’s attention. It’s the FIRST part that makes people think immigrants can’t be trusted. It’s the FIRST part that does all the fear mongering. And it’s the FIRST part you lied about in order to muddy the waters. I suspect the second part was only included to provide camouflage, so if Chris gets called on it later he can say he misspoke, he only meant to say that “many” didn’t show up for their hearing, the 10% referred to those given asylum. But in the minds of “many” watching, the original stat takes root: 10% of immigrants. Meaning 90% are RUNNING RAMPAGE AND WANT TO EAT YOUR BABIES AND IMPREGNATE YOUR DAUGHTERS!!!

And, y’know, COME THE FUCK ON. I don’t believe for a second that Chris doesn’t know this. I don’t believe for a second this is an accident. For that matter, I don’t believe for a second that all those other assholes who use those two statistics side by side (one true, one false) don’t know which one people are remembering. Just as I don’t think it’s any accident that so many republican “mistakes” and “misspeaks” just happen to benefit them if believed.

And the worst thing? The worst thing is the fact that Chris is one of the better ones of Fox.

The Interview, time stamped for your approval
Part 1:
Part 2:

Hey, at least he upped it to 10%, our liar in chief has been saying 3%.

You’re right, that is the least.

I’m just going to throw this out here:

  1. Donald Trump abuses children.
  2. Melania voted for Bernie Sanders
  3. Donald Trump Jr. is wanted for fraud in seven countries
  4. Paul Ryan took about $7 million in illegal campaign contributions from Pol Pot
  5. Water is wet
  6. Joining the RNC executive committee requires you to sell your children to the mining industry
  7. John Kelley is being blackmailed into keeping his job as White House Chief of Staff

I bet you can’t prove ALL my assertions wrong!!

Colbert said all that?

So what’s your point Ravenman? Chris Wallace was presenting his assertions as truth. You’re just stating parodies (I hope). Do you think there’s no difference between lies and parodies?

Why are you imitating a Creationist?

For everyone else: That’s a standard Creationist dodge. Put a bunch of bullshit in a list with one or two undeniably true statements, then offer a bounty to the first person to disprove the whole list. When nobody can, as water is indeed wet, crow that your list is not disproven, as if that makes the 99% bullshit content true.

It’s a way for the half-clever to fool the truly dense, nothing more, and effectively gives lies the ring of truth.

I think you are getting wooshed here. I think Ravenman is pointing out that just because one of the things that Chris Wallace said happens to be true doesn’t excuse the rest being Bullshit.

So you CAN’T prove that all of them are wrong! Why should anyone listen to you?

Poe’s Law in effect here then.

Chris Wallace is the son of Mike Wallace, right? Didn’t the old man teach his kid anything about integrity in journalism? Or has Fox News just sucked it all out of him?

OP, thanks for the links, that was great. Colbert did a great job. As far as political discussions go, seemed like a friendly exchange for the most part, need more of those.

From what little I know of that network, maybe Chris Wallace is their third best. I’d place John Stosell’s and Shepard Smith ahead of him. Sean Hannity their worse right now, but lots of contenders.

Journalism doesn’t happen on television any more. Ironically, it was 60 Minutes demonstrating that a network’s news division could be a profit center that spelled the beginning of the end for televised journalism.

I’m sure he taught him everything he knew.



Real world: