Who's Talking to Chris Wallace

I love the show and seeing Chris Wallace step far away from Fox, yet I am disappointed with CNN for not realizing the journalistic icon they have in Chris Wallace and giving him a show with more honest journalism (I love CNN, but they, like so many others, have become so dramatic and inflammatory).

Chris Wallace provides hard-hitting, honest, factual interviews. The man could elicit important information from a rock.

Even though I have found the non-political guests very interesting and enjoyable, CNN is missing a great opportunity in Chris Wallace to mix it up a bit with his amazing political knowledge and stamina to respectfully "beat up on" some politicians who need it sometimes.

Most tv hosts don't make the effort to interview a wide spectrum of guests like Wallace does. His guests have backgrounds in science, religion, sports, entertainment, government. There is no hidden agenda here. If you want to stick to shows that complement your narrative, then this show isn't for you.

But it's a new show, he's still finding his rhythm. He should interview guests in the style of "Inside the Actor's Studio." While it's not the most favored form, I think they should add a live audience who are able to ask individual questions. There's more risk involved, and sometimes these moments go viral.

News programs are too afraid of live audiences. Partisan lectures or entertainers travel to universities, but we don't have this spectrum of guests on weekly televisions shows willing to speak freely, whether it's science, news, or inspirational stories from entertainment industry guests.

Get a live audience who have the ability to be involved. Up the game. Create YouTube shorts. Go viral. Give Chris the publicity he deserves.

I can't understand the negative reviews. I watched this past Sunday and found the interviews all interesting. It was a nice variation of people in different fields. It offered a sense of who the people really are. When appropriate, Wallace asked the tough questions (Ok, I'll grant he didn't push too hard when answers were evasive in the case of the doctor, but still important issues were raised. Because of that I might have given it a 9 but I wanted to counteract all the low ratings that made no sense to me). Marc Cuban came across as very human and likable. Also, it's useful to know about his prescription business which i might use Miles davis' interview offered a great overview of music history of the twentieth century. I/m definitely looking forward to the next show.

I was pleased to see the 3.6 rating when I googled this after watching episodes. I half-heartedly made it through the interview with Shania Twain, then listened to Alex Rodriguez's ego and him fall all over Warren Buffet...a lot...like I stopped listening to it and felt pretty disgusted. It occurred to me as I looked at the rest that I don't care about what any of these people are up to, and not confident Chris Wallace was going to make me care with the right questions. The two I watched struck me as very curated and scripted, lacking any real moments that come from curve ball questions or the right follow-up questions. Add on the tone and cadence of Chris' voice that harkens back to broadcasting yonder and should have died with Cronkite, and I am left wondering who gave this the green light.

The role of a journalist is to challenge and move their interviewee to defend and refute the presumptive narrative and allow them to articulate their alternative. They bring the facts, allow responses for general criticism, and refute the falsehoods. A bad journalist gives out soft ball questions or overly challenges and attacks their guest because arguing looks good on TV. There is a reason why Chris Wallace can interview anyone. Its because his interviews are challenging but fair. A great show. I have been partial to the political interviews, because interviewing actors and the like ain't that interesting to me.