Talk:Mike Wallace (journalist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
I hadn't realized Mike Wallace is 86 years old. Wallace looks a lot younger. JesseG 19:24, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Indeed!Vulturell 08:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
What--no references???--RattBoy 02:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Does he really use "Michael"? "Mike" is an adopted name. Seems to me from a point of no special knowledge whatsoever that that's what he calls himself, but maybe someone knows differently. Anyone seen his driver's license? 18.173.1.42 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Mike Wallace has a major "Jew" problem; I have edited this into the article.Incorrect 10:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Really? I've seen many an interview with the guy, and he has no problem declaring himself a Jew. Does this mean he has problems with himself? I know I'll be checking out the references on this myself, and it better be above the level of scurrulous or I'll be removing it. --Dh100 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
A Question on Mr Wallace Religion ?
Did not he converted to mormanism ? Should the Criticism section be moved before the Depression section read them and move them.
Contents |
[edit] Iran
Guys, this needs most definitly to be in the article. --Striver 12:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] interview with the Iranian president
I am Iranian and I do not agree with American foreign policies. However, I saw nothing wrong with Mr. Wallace and liked him since I felt as if he is a peaceful man. He behaved respectfully and it was Mr. Ahmadi Nejad who was trying to make Mr. Wallace angry. I support Iranian regime, however I do not support Ahmadi Nejad's opinion. I believe in reformation. Again, I have to reveal my respect and regards to Mr. Wallace and wish the Lord bless him.
In order to add a few points to what I just said above, in fact the translation was very very inacqurate. In many cases, there was a misunderstanding too. For example, Iranian president said we are sorry that WE cannot support Hezbollah by weapons. But the translator said we are sorry that YOU cannot help the Hezbolah. The translator also left a few sentenses that the president made.
On the contrary to what people say, Wallace did not get angry. When he was trying to respond to what president had just said, Ahmadi Nejad used not to allow Wallace to talk. Iranian president is not yet a prefessional one. He ONLY impacts on what he wants to achieve. Did not really matter what wallace would have said, he was gonna talk about poverty in the US, loving people all round the world and whatever he wanted in general. He did not answer almost all of the most important questions that Wallace asked.
Another point, he really said those words regarding the UN speach that he gave but as you saw he denied it!
I do not oppose all comments that president made like criticism of the US foreign policies but in general, Ahmadi Nejad did not do his best.
Another thing that I am gonna
I noticed a difference in focus between this article and the Westmoreland article: "Mike Wallace interviewed Gen. William Westmoreland for the CBS special The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception [3]. Westmoreland then sued Wallace and CBS for libel. In February 1985, while the case was still in court, CBS settled with Westmoreland after their internal investigation determined that the producers of the show had not used the proper standards of fairness."
Westmoreland's article: "In Westmoreland v. CBS, Westmoreland sued Wallace and CBS for libel, and a long and arduous trial process began. After the trial was in progress, Westmoreland surprisingly settled with CBS for an apology, about as much as they had originally offered. Some contend that Judge Leval's instructions to the jury over what constituted "actual malice" to prove libel were so weighted in favour of the defense that Westmoreland's lawyers were certain he would lose. Others point out that the settlement occurred after two of Westmoreland's former intelligence officers, Major General Joseph McChristian and Colonel Gains Hawkins, testified to the accuracy of the substantive allegations of the broadcast, which were that Westmoreland ordered changes in intelligence reports on Viet Cong troop strengths for political reasons. Some disagreement remains as to the appropriateness of some of the journalistic methods." Perhaps they're both right?
[edit] "Quotations"
"Who gave George Bush the duty to free people around the world?"
I took that out because it has nothing to do with anything and was just an excuse to link to some conservative "Media Research" site. Apparently it's kind of like science but for Republicans.
[edit] interview with the shah or iran
in it, he actually questions the Shah's assertion that Israel and the Jewish lobby influence american foreign policy in the middle east. it amazed me that he could question something so obvious. maybe someone can add to this. Spoilermdc (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
