John King Defended By Fox News' Chris Wallace And Neil Cavuto (VIDEO)

Fox News hosts defended CNN's John King on Friday for asking GOP candidate Newt Gingrich about the bombshell interview his ex-wife gave ABC before Thursday's Republican primary debate.

King started the debate by asking Gingrich if he would like to discuss the allegations his ex-wife made during the interview. Gingrich said he did not and blasted ABC for airing the interview days before the South Carolina primary. He also lashed out at CNN and John King for using what he called "trash" to open a presidential debate. King received a considerable amount of backlash from the debate audience.

On Friday's "Fox and Friends," Fox News' Chris Wallace defended King for asking Gingrich the question. Wallace told the "Fox and Friends" hosts that he would have "absolutely" opened the debate with the same question if he were the moderator.

"Our job isn't to be popular, our job is to ask what's on people's minds...I thought it was a legitimate first question to ask," Wallace said.

Later on Friday, Fox News host Neil Cavuto also defended King. Cavuto opened his show by telling his viewers that it was King's duty as debate moderator to ask Gingrich about his ex-wife's recent interview. Cavuto said, "Enough with making CNN's John King a villain for asking it, and Newt Gingrich a hero for effectively dodging it." Cavuto echoed Wallace's statement and said that he would have opened the debate with the same question.

Watch Wallace defending King in the first video, followed by Cavuto's remarks below.

WATCH:

Also on HuffPost:

View a slideshow of the GOP candidates stances on the issues below:

Comments

[Rick Huggins]

12:25 PM on 01/23/2012

It seems a little disingenuous when two white "journalists" come to defense of anther white "journalist" for basically prodding another character issue that a black "journalist" asked but did not come to his defense? Meaning that of the black "journalist".
And that the later is even a co- employee of theirs.

[labman]

10:38 AM on 01/23/2012

Of course they will defend him. The same way they would attack him if it was Mitt that he questioned. The main job of the Fox Talking Heads, i to make sure that Romney gets the nomination. Any questions that make the other candidates look bad are OK by them, just leave Mitt out of it.

[dvncmdy]

10:01 AM on 01/23/2012

Hahahaha.... people on FOX have no idea how to react when someone on FOX disagrees....these three are confused by Chris Wallace

[mayoungkin]

08:51 AM on 01/23/2012

Exactly right. King had to ask the question. To do so would have been irresponsible. And Gingrich knows that.

[wittgene]

11:17 PM on 01/22/2012

Oh! Yall haven’t heard anything yet, the establishment is not done. Thank You Newt for continuing this circus show!!

[johnrf]

05:54 PM on 01/22/2012

I would love to know how many people think that Newt actually asked his second wife to have an open marriage? Can you imagine Newt doing such a thing? It does ring true....

[johnrf]

05:47 PM on 01/22/2012

So has Newt accomplished his goal? Has he made other debate moderators afraid to ask the question that he side stepped?

My favorite part about his wife's interview was when she said that Newt told her that Callista "does not care what I do". Does Callista still have that indifference to infidelity? Are there any current Newt mistresses? Traveling with the campaign? Will the mistress get to stay at Blair House? Considering that Newt, if elected, would be the President of the United States rather than just a mere speaker, would he figure he deserves more than one mistress? All important things to consider...

[EduCulture]

04:28 PM on 01/22/2012

All John King had to do after Newt's rant was to remind him "You still did not answer the question." That's what a real journalist like Tim Russet would have done. Now that was a JOURNALIST!

[DDay52]

04:04 PM on 01/22/2012

My real problem with these so-called Christian evangelicals is the fact that they so readily are willing to support Newt, who has shown no respect fro his traditional marriages as long as he admits his "mistakes" and is forgiven by the Lord. It seems that Christians are willing to forgive anyone with an "R" after their names, but when it comes to Democrats they are "schocked" at their transgressions and labels them "sinners' or Commies," It seems that evangelicals care less about religion and more about politics.

[Pamela Lake]

06:17 PM on 01/22/2012

Please understand that there are quite a few evangelicals out there that do not support the conservative religious right. These conservatives do not represent Jesus (no matter how often they say they do). Two minutes in the Beatitudes should disincline anyone from thinking men like Gingrich and the people who embrace him speak for Jesus. Anyway, Jesus quite frankly would be hanging out with those so-called 'sinners' and 'Commies.'

[RepublicanDepression]

03:45 PM on 01/22/2012

It was a fair question, but the phrasing was PATHETIC!

John King: "Would you like to take some time to respond to that?"

Pathetic!

Rachel Maddow had much better questions that demonstrate why a question about "private sexual morality" is newsworthy!

1) Was it hypocritical of you to lead the impeachment of President Clinton because of his affair with somebody who worked for him while you too were having an affair with someone who worked for you?

2) You have admitted to numerous adulterous affairs including one with the woman to whom you are now married. Your ex-wife today pointed out to ABC news that while you were cheating on her, you were also giving political speeches accusing democrats of undermining the institution of marriage. How do you explain that hypocrisy?

3) "In this campaign you have said you would fight for a federal ban on same sex couples being allowed to get married. How can you justify passing judgment on other people's marriage, when you're own marriages are the kind of ethical mess described by your second wife on ABC News today?"

Rachel Maddow proves she vastly smarter, wiser, and a better at news commentary than the rest of the pack.

[RepublicanDepression]

03:31 PM on 01/22/2012

Of COURSE Fox "News" defends anyone who puts Gingrich on the spot.

Rupert Murdoch's marching orders to his Nixon propagandist-run "news" network is to destroy anyone in Romney's way.

Thus Fox relentlessly attacks:

Ron Paul
Obama
and now Gingrich.

Here's Fox News chief Roger Ailes' work on a 1970 memo to Nixon on "A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News"

http://gawker.com/5814150/

Among Alies' milder hypocrisies: "He also advised Nixon to address high school students, a move that caused his network to shriek about "indoctrination" when Obama did it more than 30 years later."

[Rick Huggins]

08:24 AM on 01/23/2012

You seem to have forgotten Williams, is it because he's black? He is, after all, a fox employee.

[Grace Sette]

02:36 PM on 01/22/2012

i still believe john king was wrong to start the debate the way he did. his insensivity was deplorable and he is in part, responsible for romneys loss. john, lets face it, any skeletons in your life, i am sure there are. i used to look forward to your show, not any more. what i dont understand is why your producers didnt check your agenda. i look forward to a drop in your ratings.

[RepublicanDepression]

03:32 PM on 01/22/2012

LOL! SHow us all your posts condemning media hype over Clinton's sex life, John Edward's sex life, etc!

Grace Sette will be able to point to DOZENS of such posts, right?

[Pamela Lake]

06:22 PM on 01/22/2012

No, once you step onto the political stage the way these men have, everything is on display and up for grabs. John King highlighted what was in the news; it was explosive and frankly, that is Newt's fault - he's treatment of his past wives is what's deplorable, not John King's question. You should be more concerned about this man's character than anything else. Don't defend him.

[gypsynomad]

01:05 PM on 01/22/2012

They both are right .

[driverstest]

12:35 PM on 01/22/2012

Did not have a problem with King asking the question, but also did not have a problem with Gingrich's answer to the question. The debate on whether the subject of his ex-wife's interview should have been the first question is valid. The most valid point is that no difficult questions are ever posed to Obama. The media acts as if asking a tough questions of Obama is not necessary. They would have us believe that Obama has no old girlfriends or friends, he has no school transcripts, he has no copies of his law reviews and he was a straight A, brilliant student.

[Dabb]

12:43 PM on 01/22/2012

IF there was any indication that the President even remotely had baggage like Mr. Gingrich then the President would be asked. Some people just can't stand the fact that this President doesn't have the history as someone like Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich is nothing but hot air. He was a terrible Speaker and a terrible husband. And we have the facts showing it. So asking him questions about his affairs is completely fair.

[reasonshouldrule]

09:39 PM on 01/22/2012

You must be kidding. If there were any whiff of ANYTHING AT ALL about Obama, the right would be all over it, and we'd hear about it forever.

[marcchagal]

11:20 AM on 01/22/2012

What these guys at FOX and John King have failed to understand is that he asked Gingrich to comment on that rather than declaring a declarative question and statement, not giving him a choice but forcing Gingrich to talk about it, just like Romney had been forced to answer the question about withholding his tax returns until April.

I'm not a journalist, but I would not have asked Gingrich a point blank question.

[Dabb]

12:45 PM on 01/22/2012

King asked Gingrich if Gingrich wanted to comment on the issue. Gingrich said "no but I will".

Gingrich didn't have to comment at all. He did so he could blow up at the media which he calls elite. Gingrich is the elitist with all that shopping at Tiffany's