Terry Weisbrich

I used to be a fan of Chris Wallace as somewhat non-partisan in his reporting! After the entourage of top medical staff presented their observations relative to President Trumps treatment, an ANONYMOUS source "close to the president" reports that his condition is much worse than depicted by the Walter Reed staff. Chris refers to this anonymous report as a "background" report with enough merit to warrant the Whitehouse to address this report and "clear up the confusion" Chis, why should this anonymous "background" report merit the same level of credence as the Walter Reed Doctors?

I have watched Martha for years at Fox and believe she has introduced a new negativity component to her "interviews", most recently with the Vice President of the U.S. She asks "got-cha" type questions and if she doesn't get answer she wants, displays her impatient dislike all over her face...and her follow-up questions are reminiscent of Jerry Nadler type questions. I hate to see the last bastion of objective news reporting (Fox News), resort to these "news making, rather than news reporting" techniques.