Considering the forum that this piece appeared in, and the ads that were on the webpage when i read it, you have to wonder (hagiographically) about the intent of Bawer in trying to debunk everything Wallace ever did that WAS good. This is of course an op-ed piece, not reportage.
Still, I also find it telling that despite the long list of Wallace's failings as both reporter and human being cited here, not once was mentioned, or even referred to, Wallace's and 60 Minutes one biggest failure as a news organization: the tobacco industry story episode, which was first highly edited to make their informant look bad, but when later released in full, made 60 Minutes look really bad, as though they had given in to Big Tobacco (i.e. corporate might). You'd think that episode would have been crowed over in this piece that tries to portray Wallace in an entirely negative way. Why wasn't it mentioned? Again, given the context this piece appeared in, and where, one seriously wonders.
Nonetheless, that was quite a hatchet job. Wow.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the forum that this piece appeared in, and the ads that were on the webpage when i read it, you have to wonder (hagiographically) about the intent of Bawer in trying to debunk everything Wallace ever did that WAS good. This is of course an op-ed piece, not reportage.
Still, I also find it telling that despite the long list of Wallace's failings as both reporter and human being cited here, not once was mentioned, or even referred to, Wallace's and 60 Minutes one biggest failure as a news organization: the tobacco industry story episode, which was first highly edited to make their informant look bad, but when later released in full, made 60 Minutes look really bad, as though they had given in to Big Tobacco (i.e. corporate might). You'd think that episode would have been crowed over in this piece that tries to portray Wallace in an entirely negative way. Why wasn't it mentioned? Again, given the context this piece appeared in, and where, one seriously wonders.
Entirely credible, therefore, it is not.