Because I found Daniel Kuehn's latest comment on my previous post mainly on-target, but I also realize that many people don't read too far into the comments, I want to add this paragraph from another piece I wrote, "The Wayback Machine and Ron Paul," that discusses, among other things, the Fox News Channel. It shows why I disagree with him about Chris Wallace. Here it is:
I had had hopes for the Fox News Channel as an advocate of smaller government, hopes somewhat justified by evidence. But their treatment of Ron Paul has been off the charts. Chris Wallace has been absolutely vicious - at one point, after Paul had bested him, accusing Paul of taking his "marching orders from Al Qaeda." (Paul responded that "we should take our marching orders from our Constitution.") Carl Cameron, whom I think is one of the best reporters on TV (admittedly a low bar), was completely unclassy, raising the issue of electability and asking Ron Paul, "Do you have any, sir?" Again, Paul showed incredible class in answering with a little eye twinkle at first and then forcefully. And in that same debate, Brit Hume, the best, most-seasoned reporter on Fox, tried to persuade Paul and the TV audience that they had not just heard Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani strut their hawkishness when asked about the recent Navy response to the Iranian speedboats. That was a definite low point for Hume.
Finally, there is the fact that, in its graphic of the Nevada primary results, Fox literally left out Ron Paul's second-place showing, but showed the results for Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. This had to be a low point for Fox. Or, at least, one can hope that this is the low point.
So, I can certainly find aspects of Brit Hume's behavior that affirm Daniel Kuehn's opinion, but I think a balanced view leads to the conclusion that he is usually, well, balanced. What I linked to above is the worst I've seen of his behavior. I see Chris Wallace as a smug bully.