tag:theconversation.com,2011:/nz/topics/fox-news-3941/articlesFox News – The Conversation2024-03-27T12:38:28Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2261942024-03-27T12:38:28Z2024-03-27T12:38:28ZHow to have the hard conversations about who really won the 2020 presidential election − before Election Day 2024<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584166/original/file-20240325-9980-p8v9yo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C35%2C7951%2C5261&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's important to democracy to have difficult discussions across political lines.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/chat-bubbles-with-mouths-showing-sharp-teeth-royalty-free-image/1399061447">MirageC/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Millions of Americans believe that the <a href="https://www.prri.org/spotlight/after-three-years-and-many-indictments-the-big-lie-that-led-to-the-january-6th-insurrection-is-still-believed-by-most-republicans/">2020 presidential election was stolen</a>. They think Donald Trump won by a landslide in 2020 and lost only because of widespread voter fraud. Some of the people who hold these views are my relatives, neighbors and professional associates. Because I reject these claims, it can be difficult to talk to those who accept them.</p>
<p>Often, we avoid the topic of politics. But as a <a href="https://millercenter.org/experts/robert-strong">political science scholar</a>, I expect that as the 2024 election gets closer, conversations about 2020 will become more common, more important and more unavoidable.</p>
<p>So, what does someone like me, who concludes that the last presidential election was legitimately won by Joe Biden, say to those who think that Trump was the actual winner? Here are a few of the questions I raise in my own conversations about 2020.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584168/original/file-20240325-28-2snc9f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Rioters climb the walls of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584168/original/file-20240325-28-2snc9f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584168/original/file-20240325-28-2snc9f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584168/original/file-20240325-28-2snc9f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584168/original/file-20240325-28-2snc9f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584168/original/file-20240325-28-2snc9f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584168/original/file-20240325-28-2snc9f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584168/original/file-20240325-28-2snc9f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This is not what democracy looks like.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/CapitolRiotSeattlePolice/d55c50d30d884d738559a35b01ecf9be/photo">AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Polls and pollsters</h2>
<p>I usually begin by asking about polls. Polls and pollsters are often wrong about close elections, and many prominent pollsters tilt toward Democrats. They predicted a Hillary <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/">Clinton victory in 2016</a>.</p>
<p>But even those polls and pollsters would be unlikely to have missed a 2020 landslide for Trump – or Biden. Unless, of course, as was the case, <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/07/donald-trump/trump-clings-fantasy-landslide-victory-egging-supp/">the landslide did not exist</a>. </p>
<p>Recent political <a href="https://fortune.com/2022/11/16/pollsters-got-it-wrong-2018-2020-elections-statistical-sophistry-accuracy-sonnenfeld-tian/">polling has been less accurate</a> than many people expect. And all polls have margins of error: They provide an imperfect picture of public sentiment in a closely divided nation.</p>
<p>That said, even polls with a sizable margin of error should have been able to find a Trump landslide in 2020 – but they didn’t, because there wasn’t one. The last American presidential landslide, Reagan in 1984, was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/10/31/conflicting-campaign-polls-point-to-one-certainty-some-are-wrong/30636083-2905-4e24-93a2-73ba76a7a587/">clearly seen in preelection polling</a>.</p>
<p>If millions of fraudulent votes were cast in 2020, reputable pollsters would have discovered a discrepancy between their data and official election results. This would have been particularly true for the pollsters trusted by Republicans.</p>
<p>Trump himself has often <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/10/7/21506391/rasmussen-poll-biden-vs-trump-landslide">praised the Rasmussen polling organization</a>. But just before Election Day 2020, Rasmussen reported that Trump could win a narrow victory in the Electoral College <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-favorite-poll-shows-him-narrowly-losing-presidency-one-day-before-election-1544099">only if he swept all the toss-up states</a> – a daunting task. Rasmussen found no evidence of a forthcoming Trump landslide and projected that Biden would get 51% of the national popular vote. That’s almost exactly the percentage he received <a href="https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/federalelections2020.pdf#page=10">in the official count</a>.</p>
<h2>Where is the congressional investigation of 2020 voter fraud?</h2>
<p>The House Republicans have not convened a special committee to investigate the 2020 election. Such a committee could summon witnesses, hold high-profile hearings and issue a detailed report. It could explain to the American people exactly what happened in the presidential election, how the election was stolen and who was responsible. If the evidence collected justified it, they could make criminal referrals to the Justice Department. <a href="https://january6th-benniethompson.house.gov/">The Democrats did all of these things in connection to the events of Jan. 6, 2021</a>. </p>
<p>What could be more important to the American public than a full and fair account of 2020 voter fraud? Donald Trump calls it <a href="https://theweek.com/donald-trump/1013604/trump-announces-the-crime-of-the-century-a-forthcoming-book-about-the-2020">“one of the greatest crimes in the history of our country</a>.” Yet the Republicans on Capitol Hill have not authorized a major public and professional investigation of those alleged crimes. Perhaps, as former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney claims, most Republican members of Congress know that Trump’s statements about massive voter fraud are false. </p>
<p>It would be hard, even for Congress, to investigate something that did not happen.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AbMCdSjz5KM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney says many Republicans in Congress don’t believe Trump’s lies.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>When the big lie goes to court</h2>
<p>Like Congress, or professional pollsters, the judicial system has ways to expose election fraud. Immediately after the 2020 election, the Trump campaign <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/elections/2021/01/06/trumps-failed-efforts-overturn-election-numbers/4130307001/">went to court more than 60 times</a> to challenge voting procedures and results. </p>
<p>They lost in <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/elections/2021/01/06/trumps-failed-efforts-overturn-election-numbers/4130307001/">all but one case</a>. </p>
<p>Related lawsuits have also been decided against those who claimed that the 2020 election was stolen. </p>
<p>For instance, Fox News was sued for defamation because of broadcasts <a href="https://casetext.com/case/us-dominion-inc-v-fox-news-network-llc-1">linking Dominion voting machines to allegations of a rigged 2020 election</a>. Fox, a powerful and wealthy corporation, could have taken the case to trial but didn’t. Instead, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/04/18/1170339114/fox-news-settles-blockbuster-defamation-lawsuit-with-dominion-voting-systems">it paid three-quarters of a billion dollars to settle the case</a>.</p>
<p>In another case, Rudy Giuliani has been ordered to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/rudy-giuliani-georgia-election-workers-defamation-case-cde7186493b3a1bd9ab89bc65f0f5b06">pay $148 million to Georgia election workers he falsely accused of misconduct</a>. More civil suits are pending.</p>
<p>Trump’s claim of a win in 2020 – known by its critics as <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/forced-to-choose-between-trumps-big-lie-and-liz-cheney-the-house-gop-chooses-the-lie">“The Big Lie”</a> – has regularly and repeatedly lost in court. If there were any truth to what Trump and his supporters say about the 2020 election, shouldn’t there be lawyers who present effective evidence and judges who give it credence? So far, there are not.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JOCRo97NoJ8?wmode=transparent&start=4551" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Donald Trump doesn’t think the U.S. is a democracy.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Democracy in America?</h2>
<p>Hard conversations about election integrity often come around to a more fundamental question: Do we still have democracy in America?</p>
<p>I think we do. Our democracy is fragile and <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/01/11/1071082955/imagine-another-american-civil-war-but-this-time-in-every-state">under greater stress than at any time since the Civil War</a>. But it is still a democracy. The rule of law may be slow, but it prevails. Harassed and threatened election officials do their jobs with courage and integrity. Joe Biden, the official winner of the 2020 election, sits in the White House.</p>
<p>Supporters of Donald Trump are likely to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0295747">think that the U.S. is not a democracy</a>. In their beliefs about how America works, millions of illegal votes are cast and counted on a regular basis; news is fake; violence is justified to halt fraudulent government proceedings; and it’s OK for a presidential candidate <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/12/11/donald-trump-dictator-one-day-reelected/71880010007/">to want to be a dictator</a> – if only for a day.</p>
<p>In a functioning democracy, everyone has constitutionally protected rights to hold and express their political opinions. But I believe we should all be willing to discuss and evaluate the evidence that supports, or fails to support, those opinions.</p>
<p>There is no verified evidence of widespread voter fraud in 2020. You can’t find it in the polls. You won’t get it from Congress. Claims of election wrongdoing have failed in the courts. I sometimes ask my friends what I am missing. Maybe what’s really missing is a readiness for the hard political conversations that I believe must be had in the 2024 election season.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/226194/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert A. Strong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What does someone like me, who believes that the last presidential election was legitimately won by Joe Biden, say to those who think the 2020 election was stolen?Robert A. Strong, Emeritus Professor of Politics, Washington and Lee University; Senior Fellow, Miller Center, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2221332024-02-28T12:31:46Z2024-02-28T12:31:46ZHow media coverage of presidential primaries fails voters and has helped Trump<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577956/original/file-20240226-26-lub4tk.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=26%2C8%2C5964%2C3970&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">GOP presidential candidate Ron DeSantis on television screens at a Washington, D.C. bar during the first 2024 Republican presidential primary debate on Aug. 23, 2023. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-presidential-candidate-and-florida-gov-ron-news-photo/1635010270?adppopup=true">Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s common to hear Americans complain about the media throughout presidential elections. Partisans tend to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.565280">believe the press is biased against their side</a>. These perceptions may lead people to believe the media can affect how people vote.</p>
<p>Political scientists have found some evidence that media bias can push people to <a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250002761/leftturn">vote for Democrats</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1187">Republicans</a> in presidential contests. But we theorize that media influence is actually stronger in primary elections.</p>
<p>Why? </p>
<p>In a general election, most people plan to vote for their party’s candidate, meaning a <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691163635/the-gamble">large portion of the outcome is predetermined</a> and there is less room for media influence. Moreover, in a general election, both major party candidates are inherently newsworthy. There may be <a href="https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/">some discrepancies</a> in how much coverage each person gets, but the media cannot simply ignore one of them. </p>
<p>Primaries are different. </p>
<p>When candidates are from the same party, voters cannot rely on their partisanship to make a choice. Instead, they must sift through candidates within one party and learn about them. Since media have more leeway to focus on some people over others in this context, they help choose which candidates voters hear about in the first place.</p>
<p>And those choices are potentially meaningful.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577958/original/file-20240226-20-xnuftd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a white shirt, dark jacket and tie talking to a crush of reporters." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577958/original/file-20240226-20-xnuftd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577958/original/file-20240226-20-xnuftd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577958/original/file-20240226-20-xnuftd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577958/original/file-20240226-20-xnuftd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577958/original/file-20240226-20-xnuftd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577958/original/file-20240226-20-xnuftd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577958/original/file-20240226-20-xnuftd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump greets reporters in the spin room following a March 3, 2016, debate in Detroit.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-presidential-candidate-donald-trump-greets-news-photo/513647894?adppopup=true">Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Patterns of primary coverage</h2>
<p>I am a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522000452">political scientist who researches</a> and teaches about patterns in political media, including how the press has decided which Republican primary candidates to focus on from 2012 until now. </p>
<p>A widely discussed pattern in primary coverage is called <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691163635/the-gamble">“discovery, scrutiny, decline</a>.” When a candidate says something novel, they are “discovered” and receive a burst of coverage. This attention brings momentum, making them subject to “scrutiny,” which then pushes their polling numbers back down and they “decline.” This trend is likely due to the media’s appetite for novelty. </p>
<p>The pattern <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2021.1942016">does not hold for all primaries</a>, but explains some on both the Republican and Democratic side. Additional research also confirms that the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592718003274">media leads the public in this dynamic rather than vice versa</a>.</p>
<p>Here are the recent presidential primaries that demonstrate changes in the discovery, scrutiny, decline pattern and the media’s process of focusing on some Republican candidates over others. </p>
<h2>2012 – the ‘Bubble Primary’</h2>
<p>The GOP presidential primary in 2012 provides the clearest example of discovery, scrutiny, decline. Though Mitt Romney <a href="https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/republican-primary/2012/national">dominated the polls on average</a>, other candidates – such as Herman Cain and Rick Santorum – would occasionally say something noteworthy, get bursts of coverage, then face scrutiny and decline. Reporter Matthew Jaffe called this the “<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/the-bubble-primary-republicans-keep-finding-a-new-flavor-of-the-week/">Bubble Primary</a>,” in which a new candidate would float to the top of the pack like a bubble, pop, and then sink. </p>
<h2>2016 – Trump dominates</h2>
<p>There were muted levels of discovery, scrutiny, decline with some candidates <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2021.1942016">in the 2016 GOP primary</a>. For example, Ben Carson, a political outsider with a unique backstory, received a burst of media attention before <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/qpoll-ben-carson-republicans-donald-trump-216321">the scrutiny process kicked in</a> and he then declined in popularity. This pattern was not the central story of this cycle though. </p>
<p>Ultimately, <a href="https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/">Donald Trump got the majority of Republican news coverage</a>. His constant provocative statements meant the media kept “rediscovering” him, thereby thwarting the “decline” stage. By the end of the general election, The New York Times estimated that Trump dwarfed every other candidate and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html">received nearly US$2 billion in “free media</a>,” an estimated amount a campaign would need to pay in ads rates to get comparable coverage. </p>
<p>If the magnitude of his coverage was unique, so was the effect. Whereas media attention drove sustained public curiosity for other Republican candidates – which is different from support – researchers have found that Trump’s level of coverage actually <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592718003274">increased his poll numbers</a>, which do indicate support. Trump then <a href="https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/the-insane-news-cycle-of-trumps-presidency-in-1-chart-1513305658">dominated the news cycle into his presidency</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578007/original/file-20240226-20-oq6q1z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Five men debating each other on a stage behind lecterns." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578007/original/file-20240226-20-oq6q1z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578007/original/file-20240226-20-oq6q1z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578007/original/file-20240226-20-oq6q1z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578007/original/file-20240226-20-oq6q1z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578007/original/file-20240226-20-oq6q1z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578007/original/file-20240226-20-oq6q1z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578007/original/file-20240226-20-oq6q1z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">GOP presidential candidates, left to right, Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in a debate on Nov. 22, 2011, in Washington.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-presidential-candidates-u-s-rep-ron-paul-texas-news-photo/133950841?adppopup=true">Mark Wilson/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2020</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/06/republicans-cancel-primaries-trump-challengers-1483126">The Republican Party canceled some of its primaries in 2020</a>, allowing Trump to run virtually uncontested. </p>
<h2>2024</h2>
<p>Most of the past discovery, scrutiny, decline patterns have taken place while candidates debated and campaigned in the early primary or caucus states. The 2024 GOP primary has been different. </p>
<p>Eight Republican candidates participated in debates while Trump sat them out and focused his campaign efforts elsewhere. Though these debates generated small moments and poll bumps for some candidates – <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/12/vivek-ramaswamy-polls-rise-00110937">such as Vivek Ramaswamy</a> in August 2023 – this time period did not produce a series of clear and obvious flavors of the week. </p>
<p>Instead, prominent outlets seemed to have fixated on a – potential – Republican nominee literally years before debate season: Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, who did not declare he was running <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ron-desantis-2024-president-election-run-announcement-twitter-rcna82291">until May 24, 2023</a>. Even though coverage of Trump became more prominent as the primary season picked up in 2023, this early selection of DeSantis is the more unusual story of American media behavior. </p>
<h2>‘Choosing’ DeSantis</h2>
<p>In the months after the 2020 election, <a href="https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/08/13/inside-fox-news-desantis-is-the-future-of-the-party-and-hes-taking-advantage/">Fox News asked DeSantis to appear on the network almost every day</a>. New York Times journalists suggested the network was “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/us/politics/desantis-media.html">promoting</a>” his inevitable campaign. </p>
<p>But the New York Times itself published a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/us/politics/ron-desantis-republican-trump.html">slew of articles</a> that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/02/opinion/donald-trump-ron-desantis-republican-party.html">increasingly sounded like</a> DeSantis was the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/magazine/ron-desantis.html">inevitable nominee</a>, culminating in the 2022 article “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/09/opinion/ron-desantis-midterms.html">Did Ron DeSantis Just Become the 2024 Republican Front Runner?</a>” </p>
<p>The New York Post in late 2022 <a href="https://nypost.com/cover/november-9-2022/">featured him on their front page</a> with the title “DeFUTURE.” Though some reporters hedged their language about DeSantis’ prospects, headlines like these are nonetheless signals to the public about a politician’s viability, which <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2669334">voters use to make decisions</a>.</p>
<p>The abnormally early focus on DeSantis could have been because he was genuinely newsworthy <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/desantis-florida-covid-mandates/index.html">given his controversial COVID-19 policies</a>, he increased viewership or because, as one Fox producer said in an email, he is “<a href="https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/08/13/inside-fox-news-desantis-is-the-future-of-the-party-and-hes-taking-advantage/">the future of the party</a>.” Ultimately, the hype was premature; DeSantis <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ron-desantis-planning-drop-presidential-bid-sunday-rcna134953">dropped out and endorsed Trump</a> before the New Hampshire primary.</p>
<h2>Trump throws a wrench</h2>
<p>What can be made of all this? </p>
<p>The media is influential in telling the public who to consider. In 2012, coverage moved in distinct cycles, leading the public to focus on certain Republicans over others. In 2016, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592718003274">Trump benefited from this attention in ways others did not</a>, allowing him to monopolize the spotlight for years and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0708-1">bond with his base</a>. </p>
<p>Trump’s dominance – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592718003274">partially a creation of the American press</a> – may have thrown a wrench into <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2021.1942016">somewhat normal patterns</a> of primary coverage, as some outlets then seemed to “discover” a new Republican candidate the moment Trump left the Oval Office. </p>
<p>Regardless of why major outlets selected DeSantis early, Trump has shown that when he is actively campaigning, he comes out on top and <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/national/">other Republicans mostly fade into the background</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222133/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karyn Amira does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In a general election, most people will vote for their party’s candidate. But in a primary, voters rely on media coverage to help them choose among candidates. And that gives the media influence.Karyn Amira, Associate Professor of Political Science, College of CharlestonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2238292024-02-22T13:44:03Z2024-02-22T13:44:03ZHow you can tell propaganda from journalism − let’s look at Tucker Carlson’s visit to Russia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577087/original/file-20240221-18-sh4e18.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=114%2C0%2C1196%2C867&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tucker Carlson at a Moscow grocery store, praising the bread.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://tuckercarlson.com/tc-shorts-moscow-grocery-story/">Screenshot, Tucker Carlson Network</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tucker Carlson, the conservative former cable TV news pundit, recently <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68223148">traveled to Moscow to interview</a> Russian dictator Vladimir Putin for his <a href="https://tuckercarlson.com/">Tucker Carlson Network, known as TCN</a>.</p>
<p>The two-hour interview itself proved dull. Even Putin found Carlson’s <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-tucker-carlson-soft-interview/">soft questioning “disappointing</a>.” Very little from the interview was newsworthy. </p>
<p>Other videos Carlson produced while in Russia, however, seemed to spark far more <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/business/media/tucker-carlson-putin-navalny.html">significant commentary</a>. Carlson marveled at the beauty of <a href="https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1757901280830505037">the Moscow subway</a> and <a href="https://tuckercarlson.com/tc-shorts-moscow-grocery-story/">seemed awed by the cheap prices</a> in a Russian supermarket. He found the faux McDonald’s – rebranded “Tasty-period” – <a href="https://tuckercarlson.com/tc-shorts-russias-version-of-mcdonalds/">cheeseburgers delicious</a>.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08821127.2007.10678081">scholar of broadcast propaganda</a>, I believe Carlson’s work provides an opportunity for public education in distinguishing between propaganda and journalism. Some Americans, primarily Carlson’s fans, will view the videos as accurate reportage. Others, primarily Carlson’s detractors, will reject them as mendacious propaganda. </p>
<p>But closely considering these categories, and evaluating Carlson’s work in context, might deepen public understanding of the distinction between journalism and propaganda in the American context. </p>
<h2>Promoting authoritarians</h2>
<p>Carlson’s ability to secure the Putin interview was commendable. Interviewing dictators – <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/31/pol-pot-interview-turns-into-90-minute-lecture/82248268-f801-4a46-90e0-c961fef31505/">even the most murderous ones</a>, such as Cambodia’s Pol Pot – can represent a significant journalistic achievement. </p>
<p>Yet, Carlson’s listless approach to the Russian dictator, who <a href="https://www.miragenews.com/full-text-transcript-of-tucker-carlson-putin-1171489">droned on endlessly</a>, proved a wasted opportunity. Despite Carlson’s passivity, the interview did, in fact, reveal aspects of Putin’s intentions likely unknown to many Americans. For example, <a href="https://www.wnyc.org/story/navalny-putin-russia-ukraine">Putin blamed Poland for provoking Hitler’s attack on the country in 1939, which sparked World War II</a> – a statement at odds with the facts. He also seemed to signal his desire to <a href="https://www.wnyc.org/story/navalny-putin-russia-ukraine">attack Poland, or another neighbor</a>, in the near future. Had Carlson’s trip concluded with the interview, it might have been judged journalistically worthwhile.</p>
<p>Yet, that’s not what Carlson did. </p>
<p>Producing a travelogue, Carlson toured Moscow and made videos extolling the glories of Russian society, culture and governance. The Moscow subway impressed him, while the low prices in a Russian supermarket “radicalized” him “against our American leaders.” </p>
<h2>‘Classic case of propaganda’</h2>
<p>There are numerous ways to evaluate the truthfulness of Carlson’s reports.</p>
<p>For example, if things are as copacetic in Russia as Carlson claims, then emigration out of the country should be minimal, or at least normal. Yet, since the 2022 Ukraine war mobilization, Russians have <a href="https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/sanctions-and-russias-war-limiting-putins-capabilities">fled their country in historically high numbers</a>. </p>
<p>Even those cheap supermarket prices Carlson loved are a mirage. They exist only through subsidies, and with Russia’s <a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/90753">continued devaluation of the ruble in</a> 2024, combined with a planned huge increase in military spending, Russia’s government <a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/90753">continues to make every Russian poorer</a> to fund its war. </p>
<p>In other words, what’s cheap to Carlson is expensive and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/putin-russian-inflation-could-near-8-this-year-2023-12-14/">getting more expensive for almost all Russians</a>. This trend will continue in 2024, as Putin recently <a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/putin-russian-inflation-could-near-8-this-year-2023-12-14/">projected Russia’s inflation rate to be 8%</a> in 2024 – more than double <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-10/us-inflation-is-set-to-fade-in-2024-as-goods-prices-keep-falling">the projection for the United States</a>. In fact, a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/putin-russian-inflation-could-near-8-this-year-2023-12-14/">Russian citizen complained</a> directly to Putin in December 2023 about the price of eggs, and Putin <a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/putin-russian-inflation-could-near-8-this-year-2023-12-14/">uncharacteristically apologized</a>.</p>
<p>But research shows that fact-checking Carlson’s claims <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-checking-may-be-important-but-it-wont-help-americans-learn-to-disagree-better-174034">is not likely to change</a> many people’s opinions. We know most people don’t appreciate being told their preferred information is inaccurate, and when untruthful reports accord with their perception of reality, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9548403/">they’ll believe them</a>. </p>
<p>Instead of categorizing Carlson’s Russia videos as “reporting,” “journalism,” “information” or “fake news,” we could define it instead as a classic case of propaganda. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577091/original/file-20240221-22-re1ejc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Screenshot of a headline that says 'Tucker Carlson: Moscow ‘so much nicer than any city in my country’'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577091/original/file-20240221-22-re1ejc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577091/original/file-20240221-22-re1ejc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=125&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577091/original/file-20240221-22-re1ejc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=125&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577091/original/file-20240221-22-re1ejc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=125&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577091/original/file-20240221-22-re1ejc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=157&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577091/original/file-20240221-22-re1ejc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=157&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577091/original/file-20240221-22-re1ejc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=157&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A headline from The Hill about Carlson’s Moscow visit.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4465352-tucker-carlson-moscow-putin/">Screenshot, The Hill</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Emotionally potent oversimplifications’</h2>
<p>Propaganda is communication designed to bypass critical and rational examination in order to provoke intended emotional, attitudinal or behavioral responses from an audience.</p>
<p>Public understanding of propaganda usually links it to lying, but that’s not quite correct. While some propaganda is mendacious, the most effective propaganda will interlace carefully selected verifiable facts with emotional appeals. </p>
<p>For an average American, those Russian supermarket prices really were cheap. But that’s a selected truth presented without context essential for understanding. </p>
<p>Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once described propaganda in a democracy as “<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/984945-rationality-belongs-to-the-cool-observer-but-because-of-the">emotionally potent oversimplifications</a>” peddled to the masses, and that’s precisely what Carlson’s videos seem to provide. </p>
<p>That Carlson has evolved into a propagandist is not surprising. In 2022, The New York Times analyzed his Fox News broadcasts between 2016 and 2021. The paper concluded that Carlson’s program became <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/30/us/tucker-carlson-tonight.html">far less interested in rational dialogue and critical exchange</a> – by interviewing people who disagreed with him – as it evolved into <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/30/us/tucker-carlson-tonight.html">a monologue-driven format</a> in which Carlson preached often <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/30/us/tucker-carlson-tonight.html">factually dubious</a> assertions to his audience. </p>
<p>At one time, early in his career, Carlson <a href="https://www.cjr.org/the_profile/tucker-carlson.php">demonstrated significant journalistic talent</a>, especially in magazine feature writing. But his dedication to accuracy – and even basic truth-telling – was exposed as a sham <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/all-the-texts-fox-news-didnt-want-you-to-read.html">when his texts</a> from the Dominion voting machine lawsuit were revealed and illustrated <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/all-the-texts-fox-news-didnt-want-you-to-read.html">his mendacity</a>.</p>
<h2>Distinguishing between Gershkovich and Carlson</h2>
<p>Carlson is not <a href="https://theconversation.com/normalizing-fascists-69613">the first American reporter</a> to travel to a foreign dictatorship and <a href="https://theconversation.com/hitler-at-home-how-the-nazi-pr-machine-remade-the-fuhrers-domestic-image-and-duped-the-world-47077">produce propaganda in the guise of journalism</a>. </p>
<p>The New York Times’ Walter Duranty <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/05/08/1097097620/new-york-times-pulitzer-ukraine-walter-duranty">infamously ignored</a> the Stalin dictatorship’s horrific starvation of millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s. The Times’ Berlin correspondent Guido Enderis specialized in “<a href="https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/history/articles/new-york-times-nazi-correspondent">puffy profiles of leading Nazis</a>” while whitewashing the regime’s <a href="https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/history/articles/new-york-times-nazi-correspondent">more evil aspects</a> in the mid-1930s. </p>
<p>More recently, correspondent Peter Arnett was <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/media-jan-june03-arnett_03-31">fired from NBC News</a> for appearing on state-controlled Iraqi TV in 2003 and praising the success of “<a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/media-jan-june03-arnett_03-31">Iraqi resistance</a>” at the outset of the U.S.-Iraq war. Although Arnett’s comments did not originally appear on NBC, they were rebroadcast widely. </p>
<p>But what makes Carlson’s actions particularly galling to some was that his propaganda appeared while Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich remains imprisoned by Putin’s regime for alleged spying, but which was really accurate reporting from Russia. When Carlson questioned Putin about Gershkovich, the dictator replied that <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-swap-deal-free-wsj-reporter-gershkovich-might-be-possible-2024-02-09/">a prisoner exchange might be negotiated</a>.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the distinction between journalism and propaganda is the difference between Gershkovich and Carlson. </p>
<p>Gershkovich sits in a Russian prison for investigating the truth about Putin’s Russia in service to the American public and his employer. Carlson flies around the world <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/01/tucker-carlson-hungary-orban-00004149">praising authoritarian leaders</a> such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban, while “rooting” for dictators like Vladimir Putin when they attack their neighbors. “<a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/11/26/20983778/tucker-carlson-rooting-for-russia-ukraine-invasion-america-first">Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am</a>,” he said in 2019 about the Ukraine-Russian conflict. </p>
<p>To expose abusive governmental power and hold it accountable “<a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript">to the opinions of mankind</a>” is literally written in America’s Declaration of Independence. To travel abroad praising dictatorships for their subways and cheeseburgers while ignoring their murderousness, and to return “radicalized … against our leaders” because foreign supermarket prices are low, is certainly not journalism. It is propaganda.</p>
<p>Carlson’s videos may have one beneficial result: If enough Americans learn from them how to detect propaganda and distinguish it from ethical and professional reporting, then perhaps Carlson unintentionally provided a valuable media literacy service to the nation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223829/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael J. Socolow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Tucker Carlson’s sycophantic interview with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, and his subsequent praise for Russia’s subways, supermarkets and cheeseburgers, was not journalism. It was propaganda.Michael J. Socolow, Professor of Communication and Journalism, University of MaineLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2183332024-01-04T13:48:10Z2024-01-04T13:48:10ZPundits: Central to democracy, or partisan spewers of opinion who destroy trust<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565215/original/file-20231212-27-v6t3dn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=21%2C5%2C3508%2C2047&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Two pundits – Jonah Goldberg, left, and Paul Begala, second from right – discuss politics with journalists Kristen Holmes and Jake Tapper.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Walter Lippmann, who lived from 1889 to 1974, was an <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10457090109600716">early and prime example of the public intellectual as pundit</a> commenting on news of the day. </p>
<p>Lippmann, a Pulitzer Prize winner, wrote a syndicated column on national and international affairs. He advocated a philosophy in which honest reflection on common experiences would lift citizens out of their parochial worldviews. </p>
<p>A pundit is someone who offers commentary in the media on a particular subject area. A gallery of legacy newspaper pundits would include a more raucous wing. Turn a corner and the cranky “Sage of Baltimore,” <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/13/hl-mencken-predicted-a-moron-in-the-white-house">H. L. Mencken</a>, appears. The satirist and cultural critic, who was born in 1880 and died in 1956, lived for most of his life in a neighborhood of old West Baltimore. </p>
<p>He was suspicious of representative democracy and predicted in 1920: “On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” </p>
<p>The syndicated humorist <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/author/R/M/au5427740.html">Mike Royko</a> would bring a more working-class sensibility to his targets. He began writing columns for a U.S. Air Force newspaper in 1955 and would eventually produce more than 7,500 daily columns for Chicago newspapers. Among his targets was Frank Sinatra, whom the columnist once accused of commandeering Chicago police for personal security. </p>
<p>Molly Ivins appears next, promising in 2003 “even more bushwhacking.” She co-wrote <a href="https://knopfdoubleday.com/?s=molly+ivins">“Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush’s America”</a> in conjunction with newspaper columns that were frequently critical of the president, a fellow Texan. </p>
<p>Holding politicians and institutions accountable often requires combative voices. What kind of commentary is needed now, though, when so much political talk is degrading and divisive? I ask this question as a former editorial writer who studies <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10584609.2022.2045401">how journalism operates as a political institution</a>. I want to suggest that pundits support democracy when their combat is driven by ideas rather than tribal identities.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564524/original/file-20231208-17-wllymv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman working in a home office at her desk with a cat on her shoulder, seen from her back." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564524/original/file-20231208-17-wllymv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564524/original/file-20231208-17-wllymv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564524/original/file-20231208-17-wllymv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564524/original/file-20231208-17-wllymv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564524/original/file-20231208-17-wllymv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564524/original/file-20231208-17-wllymv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564524/original/file-20231208-17-wllymv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rear view of newspaper columnist Molly Ivins working at a computer as her pet Siamese cat hangs over one shoulder in her office.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rear-view-of-newspaper-columnist-molly-ivins-working-at-news-photo/50469187?adppopup=true">Mark Perlstein/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Pundit proliferation</h2>
<p>Punditry became a <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Sound_and_Fury.html?id=u5JZAAAAMAAJ">more central feature of democracy</a> with the expansion of mass media in the 20th century. While Lippmann emphasized the civic value of commentary, punditry would prove its commercial value, too. </p>
<p>Mass media in the 1950s featured <a href="https://web-p-ebscohost-com.colorado.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&sid=f8bbd7ef-5211-4413-b69b-825d6c454075%40redis">radio hosts who delighted in browbeating callers</a>. Those hosts were rewarded with increased ratings. Radio and television punditry also helped stations to fill air time with relatively modest production costs. </p>
<p>The New York Times is not representative of mainstream newspapers, but <a href="https://voegelinview.com/the-public-intellectual-between-philosophy-and-politics/">its expansion of opinion journalism</a> over the last few decades is illustrative. The paper published just two columnists in the early 1950s. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769901008700204">By 1994, the Times featured eight</a>. A similar expansion occurred at The Washington Post and many regional newspapers across the country. </p>
<p>The rise of a television pundit class in the 1960s established a <a href="https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/2003052">new type of celebrity</a>, thanks largely to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/nyregion/29buckley.html">William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line,” which ran from 1966 to 1999</a>. Leaning back in a chair, clipboard in hand, eyes darting, the conservative author typically treated guests politely on the public affairs show. </p>
<p>Lippmann’s vision of the pundit as public intellectual sought to preserve “the traditions of civility” during the advent of broadcast media. The aspiration was hardly a source of inspiration for “The McLaughlin Group” and other <a href="https://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=3356">shout shows</a> launched in the 1980s. Shout shows are televised, short-form debates. Conversations quickly turn into confrontations. </p>
<h2>Incentives to punch up</h2>
<p>Columnists cannot replicate the visceral experience of the shout shows, although <a href="https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/news-grazers/book237055">the ability of readers to graze online</a> heightens the incentive to punch up punditry. Deadlines, of course, are another barrier to high-minded commentary. Lippmann explained that a column is produced by a “puzzled man” who draws “sketches in the sand, which the sea will wash away.” </p>
<p>Punditry today carries a negative connotation, as it conjures “talking heads” spewing opinions. Turn on CNN or Fox News any time of day to see examples. The term “pundit,” though, is derived from the <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch/pundit-2016-02-24">Sanskrit word “pandrita,” meaning “learned</a>.” </p>
<p>Many pundits are not trained in journalism. Instead, they bring expertise from many other realms. However, when they appear in a journalistic setting, they can be evaluated based on the principles that responsible journalists adhere to: <a href="https://newsliteracymatters.com/2019/10/25/q-are-pundits-journalists/">verification, independence and accountability</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/73ltBO9k9Ws?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">‘The McLaughlin Group’ was one of the first ‘shout shows’ that began on television in the 1980s.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The same historical forces that add to the diversity of candidates during election cycles have put <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/arts/02iht-02pund.11607826.html">pressure on cable channels to diversify</a> the pundits they feature. Punditry has become democratized but also institutionalized. University communications staff offers experts on just about any topic. Think tanks with ideological agendas make their own experts available to provide analyses that appear considered and neutral. </p>
<p>Cable news, online news and the legacy press offer punditry to <a href="https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/news-grazers/book237055">distracted and increasingly fragmented audiences</a>. As a <a href="https://www.colorado.edu/cmci/people/journalism/michael-mcdevitt">scholar of political communication</a>, I believe punditry is likely to become more specialized in catering to particular interests. This trend works against Lippmann’s principle of commentary that offers reflection on common experiences. </p>
<h2>Pundits and democracy</h2>
<p><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-social-and-political-trust-9780190274801?q=oxford%20handbook%20of%20social%20and%20political%20trust&lang=en&cc=us">Trust in politics</a> is preserved when citizens perceive that leaders, institutions and fellow citizens abide by the rules of the game. Commentary that <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10584609.2022.2045401">oversimplifies policy disagreement</a> erodes the trust that citizens have for each other, especially when opponents are belittled. </p>
<p>Lippmann was prescient about what scholars today describe as “<a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628">democratic backsliding</a>,” a process marked by the failure of government to solve problems accompanied by decline in the quality of political discourse. </p>
<p>Pundits contribute to democratic backsliding when they cultivate dystopian views of politics. The best example is the relentless negativity that characterized commentary on presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016. As media scholar <a href="https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/">Thomas Patterson</a> wrote, “When everything and everybody is portrayed as deeply flawed, there’s no sense making distinctions on that score, which works to the advantage of those who are more deeply flawed.”</p>
<p>In an influential 2005 study, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/new-videomalaise-effects-of-televised-incivility-on-political-trust/093762E57EF0CFA2E4A0328572DE0009">Diana Mutz and Byron Reeves</a> asked: “Is watching politicians and pundits hurl insults at one another on television merely a harmless pastime, or does it have consequences for how people think about politics and government?” </p>
<p>The authors staged experiments in which professional actors played congressional candidates sitting together in a television studio. Participants in the study watched different versions of the mock talk show. Candidates expressed the same issue positions, using the same words, and in the civil version were always polite. In the uncivil version, raised voices, rolling of the eyes and gratuitous asides demonstrated candidates’ lack of respect for each other. </p>
<p>The authors reported that “political differences of opinion do not, in and of themselves, harm attitudes toward politics and politicians. However, political trust is adversely affected by levels of incivility in these exchanges.” Participants exposed to the uncivil exchanges scored lower for trust in politicians, Congress and the political system. </p>
<h2>Supporting democracy</h2>
<p>What are the alternatives, then, to the polarizing pundit? Many political theorists insist that there is <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ct/article-abstract/16/4/411/4098648">democratic value in heated commentary</a> that calls out injustice. </p>
<p>Media scholar <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0093650220921314">Patricia Rossini</a> suggests that in evaluating political expression, people should be concerned not so much about tone as tolerance. </p>
<p>Audiences should also keep in mind the incentives of pundits, especially when commentators use their platforms to nurture relationships with <a href="https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1475-6765.12502">politicians who undermine democracy</a>. </p>
<p>Joe Scarborough, co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” regularly featured the celebrity candidate Trump in 2015. The Washington Post took notice of the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/12/10/the-many-times-donald-trump-and-morning-joe-yukked-it-up/">“many times Donald Trump and ‘Morning Joe’ yukked it up”</a>. Scarborough would later feud with Trump, but at the time, Trump was useful in attracting viewers. </p>
<p>Pundits can play a productive role by focusing on issues rather than identities.
Americans are divided not so much by policies as <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/U/bo27527354.html">mega-identities</a> that combine the political with race and religion. Recent scholarship has demonstrated that issue polarization is less of a problem as long as opponents see <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15205436.2022.2119870">humanity in the other side</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218333/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mike McDevitt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Pundits are everywhere, giving their analyses of current events, politics and the state of the world. You’ll hear a lot more from them this election year. Is their rank opinion good for democracy?Mike McDevitt, Professor of journalism and media studies, University of Colorado BoulderLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2130242023-11-15T14:22:00Z2023-11-15T14:22:00ZAs Lachlan Murdoch takes over from his father he may need to reset News Corp’s relations with Donald Trump<p>As Rupert Murdoch hands over the reins of News Corp and Fox <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/e13a0081-538a-4cdf-966d-1a20da47605f">to his son Lachlan</a>, there is an opportunity to rebuild the relationship between the family’s media empire and former US president Donald Trump. This would make business sense for Fox as Trump is a ratings winner. But it may prove to be more difficult than it first appears.</p>
<p>The deterioration of the relationship between the Murdochs and the former president resulted in <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-wont-take-part-republican-debates-2023-08-21/">Trump choosing</a> not to attend the Fox’s Republican debates. But Trump’s refusal to participate in any of the three debates has not affected his chances of gaining the nomination.</p>
<p>After the third debate on November 8, absent Trump was judged by 30% of the viewers to be the winner, <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12731283/Donald-Trump-named-real-winner-debate-DeSantis-Daily-Mail-poll-viewing-figures-revealed.html">in a J.L. Partners poll</a>. Further proof, according to one <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/08/how-donald-trump-got-the-upper-hand-on-fox-news">commentator</a>, that missing the debates has illustrated that Fox is more reliant on Trump than vice versa.</p>
<p>Trump’s love-hate relationship with Fox has been a long one, particularly his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/16/donald-trump-rupert-murdoch-friendship-fox-news">connection</a> with Murdoch and his family. During the late 1970s and 1980s, Trump featured regularly in the Page Six gossip column of the Murdoch-owned New York Post. His constant appearances in the paper <a href="https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a30709872/page-six-gossip-history-new-york-post/">catapulted</a> Trump from a New York real-estate developer into a celebrity figure.</p>
<p>During the 2016 election cycle, Murdoch originally <a href="https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/murdoch-says-jeb-bush-paul-ryan-top-2016-list-but-he-could-vote-for-hillary-186645">supported</a> Jeb Bush, the son of former president George H.W. Bush and brother to president George W. Bush. Trump’s initial support within the Fox organisation in 2016 was through Roger Ailes, the chief executive, as well as leading presenter Bill O’Reilly.</p>
<p>When Trump became the leading candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination, the Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2016/04/14/the-post-endorses-donald-trump/">endorsed</a> him for the candidacy, while Murdoch <a href="https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/705134886324215808?s=20">stated</a> that the Republican Party would “be mad not to unify” behind him. Consequently, Fox and Trump’s relationship became a mutually supportive one – Fox supported his campaign, while Trump enhanced Fox’s viewing figures.</p>
<p>That’s not to say it was all smooth sailing. In January 2016, he <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/us/politics/trump-feud-fox-debate.html">demanded</a> that Fox anchor Megyn Kelly be replaced as host of the second Fox-hosted debate after he accused her of treating her badly in the first. When Fox <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35422552">refused</a>, he avoided the second debate and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election/trump-abruptly-withdraws-from-fox-debate-in-iowa-idUSL2N15B00Z">told</a> reporters: “Let’s see how much money Fox is going to make on the debate without me.”</p>
<p>Fox News was committed to the Trump presidency. During the first year, Fox News acted as a crucial mouthpiece for the Trump administration. Fox and Friends, the station’s breakfast show was a conduit between Trump and Republicans, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/sep/17/fox-and-friends-fox-news-donald-trump">exaggerating</a> Trump’s achievements. Trump reciprocated by parroting Fox’s talking points in his Twitter feed.</p>
<p>The Trump-Fox relationship started to deteriorate on 2020 election night, when the station announced that Joe Biden had won the state of Arizona. For the Trump campaign, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/05/fox-draws-trump-campaigns-ire-after-early-call-of-arizona-for-biden">this</a> was a betrayal. In March, Steve Bannon, host of the War Room podcast and Trump’s former chief strategist, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/03/the-trump-world-fox-news-war-gets-nasty-00085506">told the audience at CPAC</a>, the leading conservative conference, that Fox had done so illegitimately, constantly attacking Fox during his speech.</p>
<p>The gulf between Trump and Fox widened in April of this year. Fox’s <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/markets?utm_source=business_ribbon">support</a> of Trump’s baseless conspiracy theories surrounding vote rigging during the 2020 presidential election resulted in the organisation <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read/fox-news-pays-price-2020-lies-trump-hasnt-yet-rcna80382">settling a defamation lawsuit</a> with the owners of the voting machines, Dominion Voting Systems, for US$787.5 million (£631.8 million).</p>
<p>According to some <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/03/donald-trump-relationship-fox-news">reports</a>, the settlement of the case, which involved admitting that the claims were without merit, was seen by Trump as the organisation turning its back on him. This was made worse by <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fox-chairman-rupert-murdoch-said-under-oath-2020-election-was-not-stolen-according-to-court-filings">Murdoch’s sworn testimony</a> that “the election was not stolen”.</p>
<h2>Maga-hating Murdoch</h2>
<p>Trump still has a good rapport with some Fox hosts, but his relationship with Murdoch has deteriorated to the point where Trump <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11807939/Trump-ups-attacks-MAGA-Hating-Globalist-RINO-Rupert-Murdoch.html">called Murdoch and the Fox executives</a> a group of “MAGA Hating Globalist RINOS” (Republican in name only). And his relationship with Fox in general is not the same as it was 2016. He also recently <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/110904845212218957">complained</a> about being unfairly treated by Fox and Friends.</p>
<p>Posting on his <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/110924112193729328">Truth Social website</a>, Trump claimed his decision to not attend the debate was because he was so far in front of his rivals in recent polls. While viewing <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/24/media/fox-news-gop-debate-ratings/index.html">figures</a> for the debate without Trump were higher than expected, they were half of those for the corresponding event in 2016.</p>
<p>Trump’s decision to release a recorded <a href="https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1694513603251241143?s=20">interview</a> on X with former Fox star Tucker Carlson shortly after the debate was another slap in the face for Fox. Choosing Carlson to be the host, who has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/business/media/tucker-carlson-trump.html">stated</a> he hated Trump on numerous occasions and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/26/tucker-carlson-fox-news-firing-condition-dominion-settlement">claimed</a> he himself had been fired from Fox News as part of the agreement with Dominion, was a thinly veiled attack on the channel.</p>
<p>Trump’s absence from the debates is unlikely to affect his chances of getting the Republican nomination. Polling experts <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/">FiveThirtyEight</a> give Trump 51.4% of the projected <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/national/">vote</a>, with his nearest rival Floridian governor Ron DeSantis at a dwindling 14.5%. </p>
<h2>Lachlan Murdoch enters the fray</h2>
<p>Lachlan Murdoch thinks as much of Trump as his father does. One unnamed source is <a href="https://people.com/lachlan-murdoch-more-conservative-than-rupert-source-says-7973718">quoted as saying</a> that Lachlan has “had trouble with Trump’s antics” in the past. </p>
<p>So resetting the Murdoch-Trump relationship might not be so easy. It would show immense weakness on Lachlan’s part and might jeopardise his relationship with his father, <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/lachlan-murdoch-reunite-fox-news-trump-biographer-michael-wolff/">according to</a> Michael Wolff, Murdoch’s biographer.</p>
<p>But regardless of who is in charge, Fox News will need to start rebuilding bridges with Trump to ensure that it maintains the attention of its Republican audience. After all, despite not being there, Trump was still the source of much <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/24/business/media/fox-republican-debate-trump.html">debate</a> and interaction between the candidates in the debates. </p>
<p><a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4168345-fox-news-is-the-debates-biggest-loser/">Criticism</a> of the format of the first Fox debate suggests that Fox needs to do something if it wants to win the ratings war. And with <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12732397/Viewing-figures-Republican-debate-drop-NBC.html">declining viewing figures</a> for the debates without Trump, it needs to do something quickly. Meanwhile Trump, it seems, can do without Fox.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213024/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dafydd Townley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Will the son choose to build bridges with Trump that his father burned?Dafydd Townley, Teaching Fellow in International Security, University of PortsmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2142182023-11-01T12:35:32Z2023-11-01T12:35:32ZRupert Murdoch’s empire was built on a shrewd understanding of how media and power work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/555588/original/file-20231024-21-p46wd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C128%2C3579%2C2369&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The man at the center of the news.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/publishing-magnate-rupert-murdoch-at-the-printing-presses-news-photo/685183993?adppopup=true">Roger Ressmeyer/CORBIS/VCG via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When businesspeople retire at an advanced age, it seldom makes headlines.</p>
<p>But when 92-year-old Rupert Murdoch <a href="https://apnews.com/article/murdoch-fox-quit-emeritus-30286a4a3107b7bde612adbfc7891958">announced in September</a> that he was stepping away from his multicontinent media empire and <a href="https://apnews.com/article/lachlan-rupert-murdoch-fox-news-a5100d8bd20f72efe5a83eec32823f1f">turning it over to his son Lachlan</a>, it was breaking news that generated countless stories <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/22/briefing/rupert-murdoch.html">speculating about the futures</a> of two of his most storied holdings, Fox and News Corp.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://miamioh.edu/profiles/cas/bruce-drushel.html">scholar who studies media organizations</a> and their political and economic influence, I see this level of attention as an indicator both of the significance of the companies Murdoch built and the way he used them to alter the media and political landscape.</p>
<h2>Murdoch the believer … or opportunist?</h2>
<p>Murdoch infused his print and television properties, first in his native Australia and later in the U.K. and the U.S., with a generally right-of-center slant. </p>
<p>But his reputation as a promoter of conservative ideals was at odds with his past. While a student at Oxford University, Murdoch <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/rupert-murdoch-kept-bust-lenin-oxford-dorm-room/335908/">kept a bust of Lenin</a> in his room and annoyed his father, Sir Keith Murdoch, <a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/rupert-murdoch-was-a-socialist-before-he-built-fox-news-20230906-p5e2ev">with his socialist views</a>.</p>
<p>When his father <a href="https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/murdoch-sir-keith-arthur-7693">died suddenly in 1952</a>, Murdoch inherited a small newspaper in Adelaide and soon was using its profits to buy up suburban papers all over Australia, as well as licenses for television stations.</p>
<p>His conquest of the U.K. began in 1969 with the purchase of a majority interest in <a href="https://www.historic-newspapers.co.uk/blog/news-of-the-world-history/">News of the World</a>, a major circulation Sunday tabloid. Eventually, he would add to it the daily tabloid <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/aug/27/rupert-murdoch-the-sun">The Sun</a> and the redoubtable but financially struggling <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/14/world/murdoch-in-challenge-of-my-life-buys-london-times-for-28-million.html">Times and Sunday Times</a>. </p>
<p>Through the 1970s, his politics moved to the right, culminating in his support – and The Sun’s much <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/how-margaret-thatcher-and-rupert-murdoch-made-secret-deal">sought-after editorial endorsement</a> – of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party.</p>
<p>Despite the conservative outlook of his publications, there always has been nagging <a href="https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2008/shafer-murdochs-a-political-opportunist-not-a-conservative/">speculation about the sincerity</a> of Murdoch’s ideological beliefs – whether they were tightly held or simply manifestations of political opportunism and his ability to anticipate the popular mood. Murdoch’s The Sun <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/20120528-liveblog-former-british-pm-tony-blair-faces-leveson-grilling-london-godfather-murdoch">backed the center-left Tony Blair</a> when Conservative Party prime minister John Major fell out of favor in 1997.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two men in suits are seen through the back window of a car." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/555590/original/file-20231024-27-kds6e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/555590/original/file-20231024-27-kds6e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/555590/original/file-20231024-27-kds6e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/555590/original/file-20231024-27-kds6e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/555590/original/file-20231024-27-kds6e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/555590/original/file-20231024-27-kds6e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/555590/original/file-20231024-27-kds6e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch, right, and his son Lachlan, center, in 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BritainPhoneHacking/140ab33fab704ff78a8a749681e4bf0f/photo?Query=murdoch%20lachlan&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:asc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=20&currentItemNo=2">AP Photo/Sang Tan</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>His successes in the U.K. provided him with the strategic template for his eventual entry into the more lucrative U.S. market: Buy undervalued sources of content creation and then use their profits, along with a combination of emerging technology and political influence, to expand their distribution. </p>
<p>In the U.K., that meant the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/oct/12/rupertmurdoch.citynews1">secretive construction of a high-tech automated printing facility</a> that bypassed the labor unions. In the U.S., it might have contributed to a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/12/23/gingrich-45-million-book-deal-draws-fire/b6f90dae-1171-4401-899a-d0b6ca3c0b7d/">US$4.5 million book deal</a> for House Speaker Newt Gingrich with Murdoch’s publishing house HarperCollins. It came as the media tycoon was facing questions about where the money for his U.S. television properties was coming from – questions, it was suggested by critics, that the speaker’s influence could help smooth over.</p>
<h2>Building an American empire</h2>
<p>Murdoch’s American empire started in 1976 when he <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1976/11/20/archives/new-jersey-pages-dorothy-schiff-agrees-to-sell-post-to-murdoch.html">purchased the tabloid the New York Post</a>. There, borrowing from his experience in the U.K., he flipped the newspaper’s ideology from liberal to conservative and used splash headlines and prurient content to more than double its circulation.</p>
<p>Also echoing a strategy he had employed in the U.K., he added the more respected <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118589043953483378">Wall Street Journal</a> to his holdings a number of years later, extending the reach of his influence from blue-collar to white-collar readers. </p>
<p>Anticipating the uncertain future of the newspaper business, Murdoch expanded his empire to include television.</p>
<p>He <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1985/03/21/murdoch-agrees-to-buy-a-50-percent-share-of-20th-century-fox-film/8862819b-50de-4ad3-aeb5-70ca84f109f1/">purchased the Twentieth Century Fox film and television studio</a> in 1985 to provide both production facilities and a library of content. The following year, he bought the television station holdings of <a href="https://www.company-histories.com/Metromedia-Company-Company-History.html">Metromedia</a> to form the distribution nucleus of what would become the Fox television network. </p>
<p>Doing so required a series of moves to meet Federal Communications Commission regulations. First, Murdoch would have to <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-09-04-mn-23112-story.html">become a U.S. citizen</a>. Second, Fox would have to limit its hours of broadcast in order to avoid meeting the official definition of a network and in so doing break FCC rules that at the time stated that a single company could not be both a network and a syndicator of programs.</p>
<p>Third, he would have to sell the New York Post, since another rule prohibited common ownership of a daily newspaper and television station in the same city. The FCC would later allow him to <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-03-30-fi-17004-story.html">repurchase the Post</a> out of bankruptcy in 1993, rather than see the newspaper fold.</p>
<h2>The birth of Fox News</h2>
<p>Unable to secure licenses for terrestrial television stations in the U.K., Murdoch <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/09/from-launch-to-takeover-rupert-murdoch-and-sky">launched the Sky satellite service</a> in 1989 as both a content provider and a distribution system. Among Sky’s channels was Sky News, the U.K.’s first 24-hour news channel. Once Sky News had become profitable, Murdoch announced he would bring his brand of 24-hour news to the U.S. By <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/08/five-facts-about-fox-news/">October 1996, Fox News Channel</a>, led by former Republican Party strategist Roger Ailes, was on the air. </p>
<p>While Fox News is now very much associated with a viewership that skews older, conservative and white, the Fox broadcast network’s path to success with audiences and advertisers was initially based in its appeal to underserved audiences among young adults and African Americans.</p>
<p>Shows like “The Simpsons” and “Married … With Children” were seen as edgy in their representation of dysfunctional families. Meanwhile, “In Living Color,” “Roc,” “The Bernie Mac Show,” “Martin” and “Living Single” followed “The Cosby Show” playbook of focusing on Black authorship and autobiography to attract not just African Americans but <a href="https://www.penguinbookshop.com/book/9780195106121">audiences of all races and ethnicities</a>.</p>
<p>When Fox secured rights to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/12/18/fox-lands-contract-to-televise-the-nfl/7c20a84e-aa1b-4226-a0b4-fe724031cc17/">National Football League’s NFC games</a> in 1993, the network began targeting more mainstream audiences as well. As he had done in the newspaper business, Murdoch established his foothold in a niche market he perceived as being underserved and ripe for exploitation before setting his sights elsewhere.</p>
<h2>A less-than-graceful exit</h2>
<p>Despite his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/feb/20/sun-rupert-murdoch">reputation as a buccaneer</a> who took huge risks in expanding his holdings, skirting regulations and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/25/business/the-media-business-murdoch-s-company-wins-extension-on-bank-loans.html">delaying repayments of loans</a> from financial institutions, Murdoch avoided major legal and business setbacks for most of his career.</p>
<p>That only began to change in the mid-2000s.</p>
<p>First there was Myspace. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newscorp-myspace/news-corp-sells-myspace-ending-six-year-saga-idUSTRE75S6D720110629">News Corp. bought</a> what was then among the world’s most popular websites in 2005. But it soon went into decline, weighed down by failures to update its technology and features. Then, in 2011, a backlash from a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jul/10/news-of-the-world-10-years-since-phone-hacking-scandal-brought-down-tabloid">scandal involving the hacking</a> of cellphone accounts of a murdered teenage girl, British service personnel killed in action and a host of celebrities forced the closure of Murdoch’s first U.K. newspaper, the News of the World.</p>
<p>More recently, News Corp. <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/11/24/938545344/fox-news-settles-with-seth-richs-parents-for-false-story-claiming-clinton-leaks">settled a lawsuit</a> brought by the parents of the late Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee staffer, after Fox News repeated right-wing conspiracy claims about the murdered man. It also <a href="https://time.com/6272910/dominion-settlement-fox-news-nightmare/">reached a $787.5 million settlement</a> with Dominion Voting Systems, which several Fox News hosts had accused of rigging the 2020 presidential election against Donald Trump. A <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/26/media/smartmatic-murdoch/index.html">similar defamation suit by Smartmatic</a> is pending.</p>
<p>For a man whose career was built on a shrewdness for reading the media landscape, such failures might well leave a bitter taste in retirement. But nonetheless, Murdoch will step down from his empire leaving mighty footprints.</p>
<p>It remains to be seen how his son Lachlan will fill them – or if he also inherited his father’s instincts and will lay down tracks for the empire in a new and unexpected direction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214218/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Drushel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As Rupert Murdoch prepares to hand over the keys to his media empire, what will his legacy be?Bruce Drushel, Professor of Media, Journalism and Film, Miami UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2141412023-09-22T01:50:29Z2023-09-22T01:50:29ZWhy is Rupert Murdoch stepping aside now and what does it mean for the company?<p>At age 92, media mogul Rupert Murdoch is <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-21/rupert-murdoch-steps-down-as-newscorp-chair/102887474">stepping down</a> as chairman of Fox Corporation and News Corp but will stay on in the role of chairman emeritus, presumably to help guide his eldest son Lachlan as the new head of the firm.</p>
<p>In many ways, the news was inevitable. The company is clearly planning its succession and how it manages Rupert’s decline. It has one eye on the market and one on ensuring the company maintains its direction.</p>
<p>But why now, and where to from here for the company? And what will Rupert Murdoch be remembered for?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-first-biography-of-lachlan-murdoch-provides-some-insights-but-leaves-important-questions-unanswered-192403">The first biography of Lachlan Murdoch provides some insights, but leaves important questions unanswered</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why now?</h2>
<p>Rupert’s departure was always going to come in one of two ways: either Rupert dropping off the perch or him leaving on this own terms. He has opted for the latter. </p>
<p>This means the company has chosen to manage the transition in a market-favourable way.</p>
<p>The transition to Lachlan looks, for the moment, to be well and truly secure. This gives him the chance under the leadership of Rupert to guide the company in the direction he – or Rupert – wants.</p>
<p>Rupert says he is in robust health but he was keen to hang on as long as possible. So, perhaps today’s news suggests his health is declining. We can only speculate but the man is, after all, 92.</p>
<h2>Would the recent lawsuits have played a role?</h2>
<p>Fox has been subject to several very expensive lawsuits in recent years, which caused a lot of turmoil internally. At the cost of US$787.5 million, Fox settled a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems over baseless claims made about its voting machines in the 2020 US presidential election. A different voting technology company, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/sep/21/rupert-murdoch-fox-news-lawsuits-donald-trump">Smartmatic</a>, is also suing.</p>
<p>But I doubt this played a huge role in Rupert stepping down because, in the end, a billion in lawsuits is nothing to a company that a few years ago made $70 billion by selling just some of its assets to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/09/21/fox-and-news-corp-stock-surges-as-rupert-murdoch-steps-down/?sh=37463b772a49">Disney</a>. </p>
<p>This is the price the company pays for its take-no-prisoners approach. It is proud of its uncompromising editorial stance, which is designed to pander to its right-wing audience. And there is no indication Lachlan will take it in a different direction. </p>
<h2>What next for Lachlan, with Rupert as chairman emeritus?</h2>
<p>In a sense, Rupert is not really stepping down. His new papal-like title of chairman emeritus recognises he will struggle to let go. But the new role is also about calming the market and saying, “Don’t worry, I haven’t gone away; I am still here and I have my hand on Lachlan’s shoulder.”</p>
<p>The best indication of Lachlan’s future stewardship of News Corp is his recent behaviour. He was at the helm of Fox News during Donald Trump’s presidential years and the immediate aftermath, when Fox News did enormous damage in its reporting on the 2020 election result. He was at the helm when Fox was making those baseless claims about Dominion Voting Systems. He had ample opportunity to guide the company in a different direction, but he didn’t. </p>
<p>So I think we can expect News Corp will continue to be the zealous right-wing media company it currently is.</p>
<h2>How might this affect the 2024 US election?</h2>
<p>News Corp has finally seen what millions of US voters saw at the 2020 election, which was that Trump was ultimately destructive as a leader. Now, outlets like Fox News are umming and ahhing about whether to back him. Some at Fox are clearly reluctant to let go of their adoration of Trump while others are disappointed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis isn’t emerging as a viable challenger.</p>
<p>If Trump continues to be the most popular Republican candidate, Fox will probably fall into line and support him, albeit with less enthusiasm than last time. </p>
<p>There is a sense of confusion within Fox about whom to back and where to stand, which reflects the chaos in US politics more broadly.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/from-the-earliest-years-of-his-career-the-young-rupert-murdoch-ruthlessly-pursued-his-interests-207829">From the earliest years of his career, the young Rupert Murdoch ruthlessly pursued his interests</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>So what’s Rupert’s legacy?</h2>
<p>It comes down to a ledger. Has this man done more harm or good in his life in the media?</p>
<p>On the good side, he has been a champion of newspapers. He has employed thousands of journalists and his outlets have often practised good public-interest journalism.</p>
<p>But I am afraid I believe the good is outweighed by all the harm done on Rupert’s watch.</p>
<p>His news media empire is fundamentally antisocial in the way it operates. I believe it’s caused so much harm to so many people along the way, and that cannot go unacknowledged. From the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-british-scandal-murdoch-20150611-story.html">UK phone hacking scandal</a> and beat ups to <a href="https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/Sceptical-Climate-Part-2-Climate-Science-in-Australian-Newspapers.pdf">climate denial</a> and the demonisation of minorities, News Corp can be counted on to dumb down complexity, make issues binary and turn one side against the other.</p>
<p>He has damaged democracy and civil discourse and journalism itself. The behaviour of News Corp has on occasions been reprehensible, for which I think Rupert must take the blame.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/rupert-murdoch-how-a-22-year-old-zealous-laborite-turned-into-a-tabloid-tsar-204914">Rupert Murdoch: how a 22-year-old 'zealous Laborite' turned into a tabloid tsar</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214141/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Dodd is on the Public Interest Journalism Initiative's academic research advisory group. He is also a former media writer for The Australian, Crikey and the ABC. </span></em></p>This is a decision that was always going to come in one of two forms: either Rupert dropping off the perch or him leaving on this own terms. He has opted for the latter.Andrew Dodd, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2140382023-09-21T20:45:52Z2023-09-21T20:45:52ZRupert Murdoch: His Fox News legacy is one of lies, with little accountability, and political power that rose from the belief in his power − 3 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549650/original/file-20230921-26-atkrcw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C18%2C4155%2C2766&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rupert Murdoch attends the 2019 Vanity Fair Oscars party on Feb. 24, 2019, in Beverly Hills, Calif.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rupert-murdoch-attends-the-2019-vanity-fair-oscar-party-news-photo/1132383737?adppopup=true">Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/FilmMagic via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Rupert Murdoch, 92, one of the world’s most influential modern media figures, announced on Sept. 21, 2023, that <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/21/media/rupert-murdoch-steps-down-fox/index.html">he is stepping down as</a> chair of Fox Corp. and executive chairman of News Corp. By mid-November, he will no longer be at the helm of the multibillion-dollar media empire that has stirred so much controversy over decades. </p>
<p>Through Fox News, Murdoch is leaving a lasting impression on American journalism and politics. It just may not be what most people think.</p>
<p>Here are three essential reads from The Conversation about Murdoch and Fox News and how they have shaped the American media and political landscapes.</p>
<h2>1. So-called journalists can lie with near total impunity</h2>
<p>Following the 2020 presidential election, Fox hosts repeatedly – and falsely – accused Dominion Voting Systems, a voting technology company, of rigging the contest to ensure then-President Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection. Dominion challenged those lies <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/03/26/fox-dominion-lawsuit-defamation/">in a US$1.6 billion defamation lawsuit</a> against Fox News in March 2021.</p>
<p>The lawsuit was settled in April 2023 for $787.5 million. During pretrial testimony, Murdoch admitted that key Fox personalities knowingly lied about election fraud in the 2020 presidential election on their shows.</p>
<p>Before the settlement was reached, <a href="https://www.american.edu/soc/faculty/jwatson.cfm">John C. Watson</a>, an associate professor of journalism at American University, wrote that the case revealed a powerful truth about American journalism: In the news business, corporations can hire anyone they want and call them journalists because the profession doesn’t have standardized requirements.</p>
<p>“<a href="https://theconversation.com/anyone-can-claim-to-be-a-journalist-or-a-news-organization-and-publish-lies-with-almost-total-impunity-202083">Anyone can claim to be a journalist</a>, irrespective of their actual function. Any business can claim to be a news organization. Functioning irresponsibly in either role is largely protected by the First Amendment and is therefore optional,” Watson wrote. </p>
<p>“Neither journalists nor the news organizations they personify have to be truthful unless they want to. Lying in the press is unethical but does not necessarily strip liars of the protections provided by the First Amendment.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/anyone-can-claim-to-be-a-journalist-or-a-news-organization-and-publish-lies-with-almost-total-impunity-202083">Anyone can claim to be a journalist or a news organization, and publish lies with almost total impunity</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>2. Fox News’ settlement with Dominion Voting Systems was a win for all media</h2>
<p>After Fox and Dominion settled the lawsuit, each side claimed victory. Dominion, declaring that “truth matters,” said its reputation had been vindicated.</p>
<p>And Fox conceded that it had to acknowledge “<a href="https://press.foxnews.com/2023/04/fox-news-and-dominion-voting-systems-reach-settlement">the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false</a>.” But the news giant also maintained that the settlement was a victory for Fox, because it reflected the organization’s commitment to the highest journalistic standards.</p>
<p>Post-settlement posturing aside, <a href="https://law.umn.edu/profiles/jane-kirtley">Jane E. Kirtley</a>, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, wrote that the settlement helped protect all media outlets over the long run in legal fights over their coverage.</p>
<p>“<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-fox-news-settlement-with-dominion-voting-systems-is-good-news-for-all-media-outlets-204095">I hold no brief for Fox</a>. But had the Dominion case gone to the jury, the inevitable appeal by whomever lost would give the Supreme Court the chance to reconsider and possibly eliminate the New York Times v. Sullivan standard that protects all news media of all political stripes,” she wrote. “At least two justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have indicated they are eager to do just that, even though it has been the constitutional standard for nearly 60 years.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-fox-news-settlement-with-dominion-voting-systems-is-good-news-for-all-media-outlets-204095">Why Fox News' settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is good news for all media outlets</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>3. Fox News’ political power is marginal</h2>
<p>Michael J. Socolow, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=YxTJsxoAAAAJ">a professor of communication and journalism</a> at the University of Maine, wrote that any evidence offered that Fox News and Rupert Murdoch created and sustain the U.S. political climate is more circumstantial than anything else.</p>
<p>Trump’s 2016 presidential election victory is a prime example, according to Socolow. Neither Murdoch nor the late Roger Ailes, Fox News’ founder, supported Trump’s candidacy.</p>
<p>“<a href="https://theconversation.com/fox-news-isnt-the-problem-its-the-medias-obsession-with-fox-news-114954">Ailes and Murdoch were unable to stop Republicans from voting for him</a>. But this failure to persuade Republicans in 2016 isn’t really a surprise,” Socolow writes. “Fox News couldn’t prevent (former President Barack) Obama’s election, reelection or the 2018 blue wave.”</p>
<p>Fox’s real power, Socolow suggests, is the media’s characterization of the outlet as a hugely influential political force, when its actual political power is marginal.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fox-news-isnt-the-problem-its-the-medias-obsession-with-fox-news-114954">Fox News isn’t the problem, it’s the media’s obsession with Fox News</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives. It has been updated in its references to Fox hosts.</em></p>
<p><em>This article was updated on September 25 to correct the dollar amount of the Fox, Dominion lawsuit.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214038/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Rupert Murdoch is a major media figure, but he may not be as influential as most people think.Lorna Grisby, Politics & Society EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2094132023-08-01T16:20:43Z2023-08-01T16:20:43ZConspiracy theories: how social media can help them spread and even spark violence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540217/original/file-20230731-235681-lb9vkv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C15%2C2560%2C1900&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former US president Donald Trump's repeaded false statements about the 2020 election having been "stolen" from him eventually led supporters to attack the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DC_Capitol_Storming_IMG_7961.jpg">Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Conspiracy theory beliefs and (more generally) misinformation may be groundless, but they can have a range of harmful real-world consequences, including spreading lies, undermining trust in media and government institutions and inciting violent or even extremist behaviours.</p>
<p>For example, some conspiracy theories claim that the Covid-19 pandemic <a href="https://theconversation.com/conspiracy-theorists-are-falsely-claiming-that-the-coronavirus-pandemic-is-an-elaborate-hoax-135985">is a hoax</a> or a plot by a secret cabal to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/07/18/rfk-jrs-family-denounces-claim-that-jews-chinese-are-immune-to-Covid-here-are-all-the-other-conspiracies-he-promotes/">control the world population</a>. Such beliefs can lead to a rejection of vital health measures, such as wearing masks or getting vaccinated, and thereby endanger the public. They can also erode the credibility and authority of scientific and political institutions, such as the World Health Organization or the United Nations, and foster distrust and polarisation.</p>
<p>Taken to the extreme, conspiracy theories can even motivate some individuals or groups to engage in violence. False narratives about the 2020 US presidential election having been “stolen” underpinned the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/politics/voting-fraud.html">attack on the US Capitol</a>, on 6 January 2021. Another example is the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pizzagate-from-rumor-to-hashtag-to-gunfire-in-dc/2016/12/06/4c7def50-bbd4-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html">“Pizzagate” incident</a> in 2016: falsely believing that a Washington, D.C., pizzeria was a front for a child-sex ring involving high-ranking Democrats, a man from South Carolina drove to the capital, entered the restaurant with an assault-style rifle, and terrified its workers and customers as he searched for evidence that didn’t exist of a crime that never took place.</p>
<p>Far from harmless chatter, these two examples show misinformation and conspiracy theories can pose serious threats to individual and collective safety, social cohesion and even democratic stability.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540222/original/file-20230731-189599-3m4deq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540222/original/file-20230731-189599-3m4deq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540222/original/file-20230731-189599-3m4deq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540222/original/file-20230731-189599-3m4deq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540222/original/file-20230731-189599-3m4deq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540222/original/file-20230731-189599-3m4deq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540222/original/file-20230731-189599-3m4deq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540222/original/file-20230731-189599-3m4deq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Contrary to all facts, online conspiracy mongers claimed that Comet Ping Pong, a Washington, DC, pizza restaurant, was supposedly the front for a child-sex ring.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comet_Ping_Pong_Pizzagate_2016_01.jpg">Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Conspiracy-minded communities grow and spread online. Social media, including forums, enable such groups to form and have continuous and repeated access to information that reinforces their beliefs and helps them forge a sense of shared identity. Instead of withering in the face of evidence that contradicts their beliefs, such groups often choose to deepen their commitment and this, in turn, can lead to radicalisation. For many, the thought of giving up their delusions is simply unthinkable – they’re too invested.</p>
<p>This identification is why common strategies to combat misinformation or conspiracy theories, such as fact-checking, debunking or presenting alternative views to such theories, not only fail but can even contribute to pushing these communities to grow even more resolute.</p>
<h2>Why and how conspiracy theories grow</h2>
<p>In our <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/isj.12427">recent study</a>, we set out to understand exactly <em>why</em> and <em>how</em> conspiracy theories persist and persevere over time on social media.</p>
<p>We found that social media can help breed a shared identity toward conspiracy theory radicalisation by acting as an echo chamber for such beliefs. The core characteristics of social media play a critical role in building and reinforcing identity echo chambers. For example, they enable individuals to become increasingly committed to such theories through having an easy and persistent access to content that feeds their misconstrued beliefs. Such individuals can imagine themselves to be “real life investigators”, yet scour the Internet searching only for information that <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias">confirms their pre-existing beliefs</a>.</p>
<p>Online networks also enable individuals to replicate conspiracy theories easily by simply sharing or copy/pasting related content. This information is therefore quickly visible to followers or members of a forum which can then be visible through hashtags and via algorithms that are used by some platforms. Our study identifies four key stages in the escalation of such conspiracy beliefs.</p>
<ol>
<li><p><strong>Identity confirmation</strong>: Users consult and view different types of content (via fora, mainstream media and social media) to actively verify and confirm their own views.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Identity affirmation</strong>: Individuals disassociate or pick selectively information from their original sources of information (mentioned above). In the case of “Pizzagate”, conspiracy-minded users took pictures from the Clinton Foundation’s support work in Haiti, created visual materials supporting supposed connections to a sex-trafficking ring, and then posted them on Reddit and 4chan. While obviously altered and taken out of context, the images were widely shared to promote the conspiracy theory.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Identity protection</strong>: Individuals safeguard their “informational environment” by actively seeking to discredit individuals or organisations that present contradictory evidence, for example with antagonistic or negative posts or comments.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Identity enactment</strong>: Individuals seek broader social approval from a more mainstream audience. This can also lead to efforts to recruit more people and call for violent actions, leveraging the community userbase.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>These stages actually constitute a spiralling loop, reinforcing a conspiratorial shared social identity and enabling a potential escalation to radicalisation.</p>
<h2>Prevention, not more information</h2>
<p><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/isj.12427">Our findings</a> underline the need to rethink some of the current fact-based approaches, which have not only been proven to be ineffective, but that actually feed conspiratorial beliefs. Instead, we encourage policymakers to focus on prevention and support education.</p>
<p>More than ever, developing media literacy and critical-thinking skills that can help citizens assess the credibility and validity of online information sources has become a critical challenge. Those skills include analysis, synthesis, contrasting evidence and options to spot flaws and inconsistencies, among others.</p>
<p>It is also important to address the underlying social issues that can contribute to the spread of conspiracy theories. The reality of conspiracy-theory communities is that they often represent marginalised populations of our society – their very existence is made possible by social exclusion. Addressing social exclusion and promoting community values may also help combat the spread of conspiracy theories.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209413/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christine Abdalla Mikhaeil is a member of the Association for Information Systems (AIS).</span></em></p>Conspiracy theories may be baseless, but they can have a range of harmful real-world consequences, including spreading lies, undermining trust in media and government and inciting violence.Christine Abdalla Mikhaeil, Assistant professor in information systems, IÉSEG School of ManagementLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2058922023-06-01T12:29:23Z2023-06-01T12:29:23Z‘Across the Spider-Verse’ and the Latino legacy of Spider-Man<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529439/original/file-20230531-21-rqrm8k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C26%2C878%2C570&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Spider-Man Miguel O’Hara, who first appeared in the 1992 comic series 'Spider-Man 2099,' was the first Latino superhero to assume a starring role.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/f/f0/Miguel_O%27Hara_%28Earth-6375%29_from_Exiles_Vol_1_75_001.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090903231159">Marvel Database</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As a Latino literature and media scholar, a lifelong gamer and a Guatemalan-American girl whose dad read her comics every night, I quickly became a fan and then scholar of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00064246.2022.2007345">Miles Morales</a>, the Afro-Puerto Rican Spider-Man who first appeared in comic book form in 2011’s “<a href="https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/39962/ultimate_fallout_2011_4">Ultimate Fallout #4</a>.”</p>
<p>Just seven years after his introduction, Morales swung into theaters in
“<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4633694/">Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse</a>,” a visually stunning, 3D-animated film that won an Academy Award for <a href="https://variety.com/2019/film/news/spider-man-into-the-spider-verse-wins-oscar-best-animated-film-1203145826/">best animated feature</a>.</p>
<p>Now, its sequel, “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9362722/">Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse</a>,” features two Latino Spider-Men in starring roles. Irish-Latino Spider-Man Miguel O’Hara of “Spider-Man 2099,” voiced by Oscar Isaac, is jumping into the fray. And although he was a well-received Spider-Man as a Marvel comic book character in the 1990s, there’s a good chance you’ve never heard of him.</p>
<h2>Breaking the mold</h2>
<p>Latino characters, particularly ones who have a starring role, have traditionally been <a href="https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/latinx-superheroes-in-mainstream-comics">underrepresented in mainstream comics</a>. </p>
<p>Marvel’s first Latino hero, Hector Ayala, debuted in 1975, <a href="https://utpress.utexas.edu/9781477318966/">after the success of “Black Panther</a>.” Written by Bill Mantlo and drawn by legendary comic artist <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIH3dbQftAc">George Pérez</a>, Ayala, known as <a href="https://youtu.be/ODOlsQVdHgM?t=224">White Tiger</a>, was a Puerto Rican college student living in New York. His powers came from a magical amulet that bestowed him with speed and martial arts expertise.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/latinx-superheroes-in-mainstream-comics">Latino comics scholar Frederick Luis Aldama argues</a>, Mantlo and Pérez avoided many of the stereotypes that plagued Latinos in comics, which often cast Latinos as criminals or drug dealers. <a href="https://www.marvel.com/characters/white-tiger-hector-ayala">Later iterations of White Tiger</a> included his niece Angela del Toro and his sister, Ava Ayala.</p>
<p>The first Marvel Latina superhero, also co-created by Mantlo, was Firebird – real name, Bonita Juárez – who first appeared in 1981. A Catholic social worker from New Mexico, she represented a departure from the Black and Latino comic characters <a href="https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/latinx-superheroes-in-mainstream-comics">who predominately come from big cities like New York</a>.</p>
<h2>Spider-Man’s web extends into Latin America</h2>
<p>In Latin America, Spider-Man has been a popular character since the hero first appeared in his own series, “Amazing Spider-Man,” in 1963. </p>
<p>Marvel licensed Mexican publisher La Prensa to print Spanish translations of Spider-Man issues <a href="https://codigoespagueti.com/noticias/comics-hombre-arana-hechos-mexico/">just a few months</a> after its release in the U.S. </p>
<p>La Prensa also extended Spider-Man’s reach to Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Perú. In Mexico, Spider-Man quickly became more popular than any other Marvel character, save for his girlfriend, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-CJwX2VRQ8&t=1s">Gwen Stacy</a>. </p>
<p>So in the 1970s, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080327084155/http:/bajolamascara.universomarvel.com/2008/02/el_spiderman_ilegal_mexicano.html">La Prensa began to create its own Spider-Man stories</a> on weeks when Marvel didn’t release a new Spider-Man issue. These new stories, like an issue where Peter Parker dreams that he married Gwen Stacy, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210424122019/https:/spidermex.com/inicio.php">only appeared in Mexico</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1096924779213275136"}"></div></p>
<p>Perhaps Spider-Man’s popularity in this part of the world is due to the fact that he’s scrappy, hardworking, and trying to help his family. Or maybe Latin Americans love <a href="https://youtu.be/w-CJwX2VRQ8?t=1172">his luchador-esque costume</a> – Peter Parker did, after all, debut his Spider-Man title and threads <a href="https://spiderfan.org/review/comics/amazing_fantasy/015.html">as a professional wrestler</a>.</p>
<h2>An Irish-Latino swings into the Spider-Verse</h2>
<p>Firebird and White Tiger never headlined their own series, though. And the Spider-Man who Latin Americans embraced in the 1960s and 1970s was white.</p>
<p>So it was a big deal when Miguel O'Hara took on the mantle of Spider-Man in his own series, which ran for four years.</p>
<p>While <a href="https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Multiverse">the multiverse</a> is a recent development in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, multiple Earths – each with its own versions of Marvel superheroes – have existed for decades in the comics.</p>
<p>This has allowed for different iterations of the same superhero.</p>
<p>Peter Parker is the Spider-Man of Earth-616, the official Marvel universe. Miles Morales began as the Spider-Man of Earth-1610. </p>
<p>Miguel O'Hara is the future Spider-Man of Earth-616 in the year 2099, a post-apocalyptic future run by greedy corporations. </p>
<p>When O’Hara first appeared in 1992 as the main star of the “2099” series, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/remembering-the-first-and-forgotten-latino-spider-man">fans embraced him</a>, with little controversy. </p>
<p>It’s possible that O'Hara was uncontroversial because questions of race and racism <a href="https://amazingspidertalk.com/2014/12/spidiversity-2099-regarding-miguel-ohara/">didn’t factor explicitly into the plots of each issue</a>. And perhaps O'Hara’s light skin made it easy for readers to forget that he was Latino in the first place.</p>
<p>Yet comics scholar Kathryn M. Frank argues in the collection “<a href="https://utpress.utexas.edu/9781477309155/">Graphic Borders</a>” that the writers of “Spider-Man 2099” were aware of their hero’s ethnic identity and subtly incorporated commentaries on race into the series.</p>
<p>In the comics, O'Hara has an accent due to his elongated, spiderlike teeth, which may reflect the assumed foreignness of Latino citizens in the U.S. and the discrimination they suffer for it. He also embraces his difference in his own style. As fans have pointed out, <a href="https://cdn.superaficionados.com/imagenes/dia-muertos-cke.jpg">his costume</a> mixes a <a href="https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-meaning-behind-day-dead-symbolism">Day of the Dead skull</a> with the classic spider insignia in an explicit connection to his Mexican heritage.</p>
<h2>Recasting Spider-Man as an Afro-Latino</h2>
<p>Then, in 2011, Marvel announced Miles Morales, the first Spider-Man who was both Black and Latino. </p>
<p>This time, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewnewton/2011/08/04/how-the-media-reacted-to-news-of-a-non-white-spider-man/?sh=49edfabc4f61">the responses</a> <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21504857.2014.994647">were more polarizing</a>. </p>
<p>Former Fox News pundit Glenn Beck <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/peter-parker-replaced-by-mixed-race-spiderman/2011/08/03/gIQAyQQ6rI_blog.html">blamed then-first lady Michelle Obama</a> for the creation of Morales, pointing to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/story/rewriting-our-history-changing-our-traditions">a clip of her saying,</a> “We’re going to have to change our traditions.”</p>
<p>However, to some fans, recasting Spider-Man as Black made perfect sense. Walter Moseley, a popular crime novelist, has provocatively argued that the original Spider-Man of the 1960s is actually “<a href="https://www.vulture.com/2016/10/walter-mosley-on-why-spider-man-is-black.html">the first Black superhero</a>,” since his backstory – raised by his extended family, growing up in poverty and demonized by the media – was more relatable to Black New Yorkers.</p>
<p>When Morales came on the scene, he wasn’t merely a carbon copy of Peter Parker, though. He was raised by his African American father – an ex-con who had turned his life around – and Puerto Rican mother in Brooklyn.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Smiling man with dreadlocks poses with 'shocker' hand gestures." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529438/original/file-20230531-21-3hlj3x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529438/original/file-20230531-21-3hlj3x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529438/original/file-20230531-21-3hlj3x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529438/original/file-20230531-21-3hlj3x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529438/original/file-20230531-21-3hlj3x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529438/original/file-20230531-21-3hlj3x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529438/original/file-20230531-21-3hlj3x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Actor Shameik Moore, who voiced Miles Morales in ‘Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse,’ celebrates after the film won best animated feature at the Academy Awards in 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-handout-provided-by-a-m-p-a-s-actor-shameik-moore-news-photo/1127271085">Matt Petit/A.M.P.A.S. via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>How Morales’ race and ethnicity would play into the stories has been a point of contention. As English professor Jorge J. Santos, Jr. argues in the collection “<a href="https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/mixed-race-superheroes/9781978814592">Mixed-Race Superheroes</a>,” the first comics series featuring Morales “barely makes any mention of Miles’s ethnicity.” He didn’t seem to speak Spanish, nor did he have any Puerto Rican or Latino friends. He even resisted <a href="https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/miles-morales-of-into-the-spider-verse-the-race-problem.html">being seen as a Black Spider-Man</a>.</p>
<p>That somewhat changed in the following series, which came out in 2018 and was written by Saladin Ahmed and drawn by Javier Garrón. In December 2022, Cody Ziglar, a Black comic writer, took over as the head writer of Morales’ story.</p>
<p>Latino representation in the Spider-Verse is still somewhat lacking. Araña, <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7560/309148-012/html?lang=en">a Mexican-Puerto Rican Spider-Girl</a> conceived in 2004, is the only other major Latino Spidey character.</p>
<p>Marvel has tried to highlight <a href="https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/panthers-hulks-and-ironhearts/9781978809215">Latino diversity in its other comics</a>. In 2021, the comics publisher released an entire collection showcasing Latino characters titled “<a href="https://www.marvel.com/articles/comics/marvels-voices-comunidades-1-announcement">Marvel’s Voices: Comunidades #1</a>.”</p>
<p>The sequel to “Into the Spider-Verse” is sure to make viewers of color in the U.S. cheer. As Latino media scholar <a href="https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/mixed-race-superheroes/9781978814592">Isabel Molina-Guzmán</a> argues, while race complicates Hollywood casting and writing, Black and Latino viewers reacted very positively to Morales. But she insists that the movie also invites longtime fans and audiences of all backgrounds “to stand in Miles Morales’s space” and root for the mixed-race teen trying to save the world.</p>
<p>To me, that’s what makes superhero films starring characters of color so compelling. These characters are, in many senses, outcasts searching for community – in their real lives and in costume.</p>
<p>As Frank, the comics scholar, notes, these differences can lead to feelings of alienation.</p>
<p>But they can also be a source of empowerment.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cqGjhVJWtEg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">‘Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse’ follows its 2018 predecessor, which incorporated a groundbreaking mix of 2D and 3D animation.</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/205892/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Regina Marie Mills does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Latino characters have traditionally been underrepresented in mainstream comics. But Spider-Man’s backstory makes him the perfect superhero to be recast as a minority.Regina Marie Mills, Assistant Professor of Latinx and U.S. Multi-Ethnic Literature, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2044922023-05-04T12:10:32Z2023-05-04T12:10:32ZThe firings of Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson doesn’t mean the end of hyperpartisan cable news networks<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523059/original/file-20230426-20-hol5pe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=684%2C19%2C3747%2C2750&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Then-CNN anchor Don Lemon speaks during a Democratic presidential debate in Detroit on July 31, 2019.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/moderator-don-lemon-speaks-to-the-crowd-attending-the-news-photo/1165418659?adppopup=true">(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Television host <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/the-view-celebrating-tucker-carlson-exit-mourn-don-lemon-termination">Sara Haines</a> of ABC’s “The View” spoke for many viewers when she celebrated the departure of right-wing television host Tucker Carlson from the Fox News Network.</p>
<p>“I am happy to know someone like him no longer has the platform he had built,” she exclaimed. </p>
<p>Similarly, CNN anchor Don Lemon’s ouster on April 23, 2023 – the same day as Carlson’s – generated an equal amount of celebration from conservatives. </p>
<p>One of them was <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/04/24/nikki-haley-trolls-don-lemon-over-firing-hawks-beer-koozies/">Nikki Haley</a>, the presidential candidate and former governor of South Carolina, whom Lemon had previously described as a woman past her prime when she <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/elections/100000008772357/nikki-haley-president-2024.html?searchResultPosition=2">launched her 2024 campaign</a>.</p>
<p>Lemon’s dismissal is “a great day for women everywhere,” Haley exclaimed. </p>
<p>In this age of hyperpartisan news programming, both Carlson and Lemon proved talented at providing perspectives that confirmed their audience’s view of the world.</p>
<p>It is not clear why Lemon and Carlson were fired, but in my view as a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=YBntiP0AAAAJ">media scholar</a>, they were removed because they no longer provided the benefits their employers expected. </p>
<p>Instead, I believe they had become potential threats to the networks’ audience shares and advertising revenue. Rather than a victory for women or truth, I view these firings as an effort to sustain and grow corporate profits. </p>
<h2>Hyperpartisan news media</h2>
<p>The advent of <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520347878/the-anatomy-of-fake-news">cable news</a> in the 1980s created more channels for audiences to watch, and thus fractured the audience long dominated by networks NBC, ABC and CBS.</p>
<p>The internet, smartphones and social media <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Lets-Agree-to-Disagree-A-Critical-Thinking-Guide-to-Communication-Conflict/Higdon-Huff/p/book/9781032168982">further fragmented audiences</a>. As <a href="https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/hate-inc/">journalists</a> and <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520347878/the-anatomy-of-fake-news">media scholars</a> have noted, the solution for many media companies in the 1990s was to target their programming to a single demographic instead of trying to attract a larger, general audience. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2009.tb01921.x">Scholars</a> and <a href="https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/hate-inc/">journalists</a> note that in order to attract a targeted demographic, cable news media relied on hyperpartisan reporting that framed news stories as liberal versus conservative. This approach proved viable, as subsequent studies found that television audiences preferred news outlets that confirmed <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/2018/05/15/fake-news-social-media-confirmation-bias-echo-chambers/533857002/">their political views</a> and attacked <a href="https://www.livescience.com/3640-people-choose-news-fits-views.html">their political rivals</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2009.tb01921.x">Liberal outlets</a> focused on <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520347878/the-anatomy-of-fake-news">confirming liberals’</a> <a href="https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/hate-inc/">views</a> by introducing <a href="https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/chris-hedges/empire-of-illusion/9780786749553/?lens=bold-type-books">caricatures</a> of conservatives who could be easily villainized. The inverse was true at conservative outlets.</p>
<p>By 2021, in my view, the unintended result of such partisan programming was that audiences perceived that the <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/17/poll-we-have-met-the-enemy-and-it-is-us-459948">No. 1</a> threat to their lives was other Americans.</p>
<h2>Carlson’s duplicity</h2>
<p>In this cable news environment, Carlson started working at <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/24/business/media/tucker-carlson-career-history.html">CNN</a> in 2000, moved to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna8049787#.W6cJZVInaRs">MSNBC</a> in 2005 and arrived at Fox News Channel in 2009, where he became a megastar with his own program, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” in 2016. </p>
<p>Whether it was accurate or not, “Tucker Carlson Tonight” provided far-right ideological content that drew an average of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/tucker-carlsons-exit-fox-news-may-be-ratings-bane-advertising-boon-2023-04-25/">3 million nightly viewers</a>, and Carlson became the highest-rated personality in cable news media. </p>
<p>Among Carlson’s falsehoods were that <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/dec/18/tucker-carlson/carlson-falsely-claims-immigrants-are-dirtying-pot/">immigrants were mostly</a> responsible for polluting a U.S. river; that the <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/aug/17/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-wrongly-says-united-states-ended-sl/">U.S. ended slavery</a> around the world; and that <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/aug/15/tucker-carlson/carlson-guns-dont-kill-people-bathtubs-do/">more children died</a> from drowning in their bathtub than accidentally from guns.</p>
<p>Whether he actually believed any of those falsehoods remains unknown. </p>
<p>What is known is that Carlson did not personally believe Donald Trump’s claims that he won the 2020 presidential election – and yet he publicly echoed rather than challenged Trump’s baseless assertions. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A billboard shows an image of a white man wearing a necktie next to his words that read I hate Trump passionately." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523855/original/file-20230502-1802-jpfgdm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523855/original/file-20230502-1802-jpfgdm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523855/original/file-20230502-1802-jpfgdm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523855/original/file-20230502-1802-jpfgdm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523855/original/file-20230502-1802-jpfgdm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523855/original/file-20230502-1802-jpfgdm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523855/original/file-20230502-1802-jpfgdm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An image of former Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson and his view of Donald Trump are displayed on a billboard in West Palm Beach, Fla.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/billboard-put-up-by-progressive-activist-group-moveon-that-news-photo/1479574560?adppopup=true">Alex Wong/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://apnews.com/article/tucker-carlson-fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trump-5d6aed4bc7eb1f7a01702ebea86f37a1">In a text message</a> to Sidney Powell, one of Trump’s most ardent lawyers, Carlson wrote:</p>
<p>“You keep telling our viewers that millions of votes were changed by the software. I hope you will prove that very soon. You’ve convinced them that Trump will win. If you don’t have conclusive evidence of fraud at that scale, it’s a cruel and reckless thing to keep saying.” </p>
<p>But in a text message to his Fox News colleagues, Carlson was less hopeful:</p>
<p>“<a href="https://apnews.com/article/tucker-carlson-fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trump-5d6aed4bc7eb1f7a01702ebea86f37a1">Sidney Powell is lying</a>,” he wrote. </p>
<p>At the time, nearly 70% of <a href="https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/70-percent-republicans-falsely-believe-stolen-election-trump/">Tucker’s target audience</a> believed that the election was stolen. </p>
<p>As a result, despite knowing the 2020 election was not stolen, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/03/07/tucker-carlson-doubles-down-on-2020-election-fraud-claims-with-jan-6-footage-despite-fox-defamation-lawsuit/?sh=8679b345e75e">Carlson continued to report</a> the exact opposite of what he knew to be false.</p>
<h2>A boorish Lemon</h2>
<p>In stark contrast to Carlson, Lemon positioned himself as CNN’s chief <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzZGuFJTs1I">liberal scolder</a> of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLctkkxEDTs">Trump era</a>. </p>
<p>Much like Carlson, Lemon manipulated evidence to create stories that confirmed liberal biases against conservative media personalities, such as falsely reporting that <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3664744-hurricane-expert-brushes-off-don-lemon-climate-change-question-i-want-to-talk-about-the-here-and-now/">Hurricane Ian</a>’s size was a result of climate change; that President Joe Biden “<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-don-lemon-partisan-biden-false-comments">misspoke</a>” rather than lied (which other <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/30/biden-falsely-claims-new-georgia-law-ends-voting-hours-early/">news outlets</a> claimed was the case) about Georgia’s voting procedures; that it is plausible that Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 disappeared into <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpVd7k1Uw6A">black hole</a>; and that <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-don-lemon-cnn-ivermectin-sanjay-gupta-lying-1639240">CNN</a>’s <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/now/joe-rogan-considers-suing-cnn-190606533.html">reporting</a> on <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/#:%7E:text=Discovered%2520in%2520the%2520late%252D1970s,of%2520billions%2520of%2520people%2520throughout">ivermectin</a> and popular podcaster Joe Rogan was <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-don-lemon-cnn-ivermectin-sanjay-gupta-lying-1639240">accurate</a>.</p>
<p>CNN’s support for Lemon began to wane after a CNN broadcast on Feb. 16, 2023, when he declared that Haley was “past her prime.” </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman stands on a stage holding a microphone surrounded by people sitting on chairs." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523859/original/file-20230502-16-k2bgvw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523859/original/file-20230502-16-k2bgvw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523859/original/file-20230502-16-k2bgvw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523859/original/file-20230502-16-k2bgvw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523859/original/file-20230502-16-k2bgvw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523859/original/file-20230502-16-k2bgvw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523859/original/file-20230502-16-k2bgvw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley speaks at a town hall event in New Hampshire on April 26, 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-presidential-candidate-and-former-u-n-ambassador-news-photo/1485559320?adppopup=true">Spencer Platt/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Feeling the disdain from his two female co-hosts, whom he had a long history of <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11716895/CNNs-Don-Lemon-seen-talking-host-ignoring-air-tension-builds-show.html">berating on and off camera</a>, <a href="https://msmagazine.com/2023/02/17/don-lemon-sexist-cnn/">Lemon clarified</a>: “That’s not according to me. … If you Google ‘when is a woman in her prime,’ it’ll say ‘20s, 30s and 40s.’” </p>
<p>Lemon was removed from the air so he could attend <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABG4fZSfIQQ">sensitivity trainings</a> to address his sexist attitudes. </p>
<p>An April 2023 <a href="https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/cnn-don-lemon-misogyny-history-nikki-haley-1235574286/">report from Variety</a> appeared to spell the end for Lemon on CNN. The report detailed other incidents of Lemon’s misogyny that included malicious texts, sexist mocking and vicious tirades aimed at <a href="https://tvline.com/2023/04/05/don-lemon-soledad-obrien-feud-cnn-controversy/">female co-workers</a>. </p>
<p>According to the report, <a href="https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/cnn-don-lemon-misogyny-history-nikki-haley-1235574286/">Lemon was accused</a> of threatening several female co-workers because they were hired for positions he felt he deserved. </p>
<p>In another incident, Lemon claimed during a 2008 editorial call with roughly 30 staffers that <a href="https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/cnn-don-lemon-misogyny-history-nikki-haley-1235574286/">Soledad O'Brien</a> should not host “Black in America” because she is not Black. O'Brien identifies as Afro-Cuban.</p>
<h2>Credibility gap</h2>
<p>In this age of hyperpartisanship, the revelations about Carlson and Lemon made it difficult for their networks to sell them as authentic ideological voices.</p>
<p>Furthermore, both of these individuals were a hassle for management. </p>
<p>At CNN, audience size for the show on which Lemon was co-host was shrinking for quite some time -– much like that for <a href="https://theconversation.com/cnn-was-just-the-latest-failed-attempt-of-the-cable-news-trailblazer-to-remain-relevant-182195">the network</a> in general. </p>
<p>At Fox News, Carlson’s texts revealed his disdain for the network’s <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/04/tucker-carlson-fired-after-calling-fox-news-exec-the-c-word.html">leadership</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/may/01/tucker-carlson-fox-nation-streaming-service">streaming platform</a>. Furthermore, since 2021, major companies such as Disney, Papa John’s, Poshmark and T-Mobile had refused to advertise on Carlson’s program.</p>
<p>Although a <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/04/28/american-approval-tucker-carlson-fired-fox-news">YouGov poll</a> found that viewers who cite Fox News as the cable news network they watch most often are more likely to disapprove – 50% – than approve – 29% – of Carlson being fired, Fox News Channel had good reason to believe it could replace Tucker and still find success with conservative audiences. </p>
<p>For one, an <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/most-arent-familiar-tucker-carlson-don-lemon-exits">Ipsos poll</a> found that non-Fox News Channel viewers are more likely to consider the channel as a news source now that Carlson has been fired. This means that the absence of Carlson may attract more audiences. </p>
<p>Furthermore, Fox News Channel has developed a formula for creating and replacing conservative personalities for decades, such as <a href="https://www.npr.org/2011/04/06/135181398/glenn-beck-to-leave-daily-fox-news-show">Glenn Beck</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/business/media/bill-oreilly-fox-news-allegations.html">Bill O'Reilly</a> and <a href="https://apnews.com/article/north-america-ap-top-news-entertainment-megyn-kelly-business-a84a7250b109411591ed6b976be800a0">Megyn Kelly</a>.</p>
<p>Rather than celebrate the removal of Lemon and Carlson, audiences should be questioning what truths have some of the current on-air personalities had to sacrifice in order to stay employed. </p>
<p>For cable news personalities, partisanship – not journalism – can be a job requirement.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204492/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nolan Higdon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Since the 1980s, cable news networks have focused on hyperpartisan news coverage to attract core audiences in an increasingly fragmented media market.Nolan Higdon, Lecturer of History and Media Studies, California State University, East BayLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2042462023-05-03T12:14:37Z2023-05-03T12:14:37ZDominion threw away its shot by not requiring a correction and apology from Fox News<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523652/original/file-20230501-292-dufq7m.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=26%2C22%2C2968%2C1971&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Dominion Voting Systems CEO John Poulos, second from left, with members of his legal team leaving the courthouse after a settlement with Fox News on April 18, 2023, in Wilmington, Del. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/dominion-voting-systems-ceo-john-poulos-leaves-with-members-news-photo/1483133428?adppopup=true">Alex Wong/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tucker Carlson’s <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/fox-news-media-tucker-carlson-part-ways-2023-04-24/">abrupt exit</a> from Fox News was a startling turn that could have been indicative of reform and remorse for the company’s deviations from credible journalism. </p>
<p>It wasn’t.</p>
<p>The separation came just days after Fox’s historic US$787.5 million <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/04/18/fox-news-dominion-settlement/">settlement</a> of a libel lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems for lies spread by multiple Fox employees, including Carlson, its prime-time star. The lawsuit <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20527880-dominion-v-fox-news-complaint">claimed</a> Fox spread lies promoting a now-debunked claimed that Dominion was part of a conspiracy to steal the 2020 presidential from Donald Trump.</p>
<p>The settlement was a win for Fox and Dominion, even without any link to Carlson’s departure. But it was an unequivocal loss for ethical journalism, a victory for financial accountability and a defeat for responsibility. </p>
<p>“Money is accountability,” victorious Dominion attorney Stephen Shackelford declared in an <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/04/19/1170802389/fox-news-settles-defamation-lawsuit-with-election-tech-firm-dominion-voting-syst">interview with NPR</a>, “and we got that today from Fox.”</p>
<p>A few days later, Fox announced it was ending its relationship with Carlson, the news organization’s biggest celebrity host and one of several Fox employees Dominion claimed enabled the spreading of false information about its role in the election.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-media-tucker-carlson-part-ways">Fox’s announcement</a> of Carlson’s departure was brief: “We thank him for his service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor,” the Fox spokesman said. Because the departure was not linked to the settlement by either company, there is no credible reason to consider it a severance based on accountability or responsibility.</p>
<p>Accountability and responsibility are not synonymous for <a href="https://jcsr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40991-019-0045-8">scholars of business</a> practices and <a href="https://ethicscentral.org/ethicscode/">journalism</a>. Conventionally, accountability in business settings is a penalty incurred for failing to live up to a responsibility. Dominion enforced Fox’s accountability with the monetary settlement. </p>
<p>But while Fox has <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-media-dominion-voting-systems-reach-agreement-over-defamation-lawsuit">acceded</a> to its accountability, it has not owned up to its ethical <a href="https://www.spj.org/ethicsbook.asp">responsibility</a> as a self-described news organization. Its journalistic responsibility includes a duty to admit publicly that it failed to tell the truth. Journalism ethics require news organizations to make a <a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-gb/The+Ethical+Journalist:+Making+Responsible+Decisions+in+the+Digital+Age,+3rd+Edition-p-9781119777489">correction</a> when a mistake has been published. It’s important to note that news organizations follow ethical requirements only if they <a href="https://theconversation.com/anyone-can-claim-to-be-a-journalist-or-a-news-organization-and-publish-lies-with-almost-total-impunity-202083">want to</a> or if required by a legal settlement. The Dominion settlement agreement did not require an ethics-based announcement.</p>
<p>However, two of Fox’s competitors for far-right viewers, News Max and One America News Network, complied with the ethical requirement after they were sued for spreading similar and related lies about the 2020 election. After their <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/04/28/missouri-lawsuit-isnt-the-only-defamation-case-against-far-right-site-gateway-pundit/">settlement agreements</a>, they admitted publishing the false information and apologized publicly. These were examples of the responsibility required by journalism ethics.</p>
<p>Such a requirement in Fox’s settlement agreement pales beside the massive payment Dominion is to receive and would have been an empty gesture, according to Hootan Yaghoobzadeh, an equity owner of Dominion. “These results are much more profound than some disingenuous apology or forced statement that would not have any credibility,” he <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/05/01/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-history">said in an interview</a> after the settlement.</p>
<p>For more than 20 years, I have <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08900520902905471">examined</a> how law and ethics guide how journalism is practiced in the United States. Although law and journalism ethics are often at odds, the Fox v. Dominion case was an instance in which a proceeding at law could have affirmed an ethical responsibility. </p>
<p>It did not.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523655/original/file-20230501-14-ttto55.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two men in polo shirts watching some sort of sports competition." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523655/original/file-20230501-14-ttto55.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523655/original/file-20230501-14-ttto55.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523655/original/file-20230501-14-ttto55.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523655/original/file-20230501-14-ttto55.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523655/original/file-20230501-14-ttto55.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=548&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523655/original/file-20230501-14-ttto55.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=548&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523655/original/file-20230501-14-ttto55.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=548&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fox News owners Lachlan Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch on Sept. 5, 2018, in New York City.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/lachlan-murdoch-and-rupert-murdoch-at-day-10-of-the-us-open-news-photo/1031795884?adppopup=true">Adrian Edwards/GC Images/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The trial that wasn’t</h2>
<p>Dominion filed a <a href="https://hamiltonps.app.box.com/s/j42odhy4cxf1xjuw324o72zmx7v7oyn8/file/791755207455">$1.6 billion lawsuit</a> against New York City-based Fox News in 2021 in Delaware, where the news organization was incorporated. Court <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885-dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment">filings</a> alleged Fox repeatedly and falsely implicated Dominion in a plot to rig the election in Joe Biden’s favor.</p>
<p>Jury selection for the trial was completed on April 18, but a last-minute settlement that day ended it all as Fox agreed to pay $787.5 million to Dominion without an apology or any admission of wrongdoing.</p>
<p>But as the recipient of more than three-quarters of a billion dollars, Dominion came out on top monetarily and declared it had held Fox News accountable. </p>
<p>In the world of business corporations where both parties live, money is the essence of accountability. Corporate leaders who do well get hefty bonuses. Those who mishandle their responsibilities are denied bonuses.</p>
<p>Fox Corp. was held accountable by the settlement not simply for lying, but for libel – harming the reputation of the Dominion corporation by lying. As such, monetary accountability was entirely appropriate. </p>
<p>Defamed humans usually demand more.</p>
<h2>Defending a reputation</h2>
<p>Historically, people in the United States and Europe would challenge their detractors to duels when their reputations or character were tainted. </p>
<p>In the most refined form of U.S. duels, the parties would stand back to back holding pistols and walk apart a number of paces, turn toward each other and fire one shot. Ideally, no one would be hit. The defamed person’s <a href="https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2016/06/so-youve-been-challenged-to-a-duel-what-are-the-rules/">reputation would be restored</a> by this ritualized proof of a willingness to die or kill for it. The defamers would suffer no loss of character either because they too demonstrated they were willing to die or kill to justify their harmful allegations.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://mediate.com/ten-duel-commandments/">refined duel</a>, both were supposed to throw away their shot – fire without aiming or aim for the sky. But sometimes – cue Broadway playwright <a href="https://dailygazette.com/2016/05/03/hamilton-makes-history-16-tony-nominations/">Lin-Manuel Miranda</a> – one duelist would not throw away his shot. U.S. Vice President <a href="https://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/burr.html">Aaron Burr aimed</a> and, famously, killed <a href="https://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/hamilton.html">Alexander Hamilton</a>, a political enemy he might otherwise confront again.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523656/original/file-20230501-28-i3hei5.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two men in a duel, with one having shot the other." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523656/original/file-20230501-28-i3hei5.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523656/original/file-20230501-28-i3hei5.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523656/original/file-20230501-28-i3hei5.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523656/original/file-20230501-28-i3hei5.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523656/original/file-20230501-28-i3hei5.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523656/original/file-20230501-28-i3hei5.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523656/original/file-20230501-28-i3hei5.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">U.S. Vice President Aaron Burr did not throw away his shot in a duel with his political enemy Alexander Hamilton; he killed him.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/an-engraved-illustration-of-the-burrhamilton-duel-this-was-news-photo/98761796?adppopup=true">Kean Collection/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Accountability is not responsibility</h2>
<p>Over time, libel lawsuits became the more civilized alternative to duels and the only one used by “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/artificial_person">artificial people</a>,” the legal term for corporations that defend their reputations and hold someone financially accountable.</p>
<p>Dominion threw away its shot by not requiring Fox News to publish a correction and apologize.</p>
<p>Publishing a correction – living up to the journalists’ duty of transparency, no matter how humbling it may be – is the <a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Ethical+Journalist%3A+Making+Responsible+Decisions+in+the+Digital+Age%2C+3rd+Edition-p-9781119777489">accountability journalism ethics scholars embrace</a>. At for-profit business corporations like Fox and Dominion, accountability is primarily in the nature of financial liability, because their primary responsibility is to maximize money-making – not lose money.</p>
<p>Making a correction and an admission apparently threatened a loss of money for Fox. According to pretrial court documents, Fox officials feared their audience would see that <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885-dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment">admission as a betrayal</a> and switch to other media, as they did when Fox announced Biden had won Arizona in the 2020 presidential election. Those were among the factors at play during <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/business/media/fox-news-dominion-settlement.html?searchResultPosition=1">settlement negotiations</a> between the two corporations, according to those privy to “the room where it happened.”</p>
<p>Limited financial accountability was good enough for Fox. Responsibility may have been a step too far. </p>
<p>Dominion could have demanded Fox take responsibility. Instead, the settlement allowed Fox News to make a <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-media-dominion-voting-systems-reach-agreement-over-defamation-lawsuit">statement</a> afterward to its faithful that said in part: “This settlement reflects FOX’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards.” </p>
<p>Dominion, which was ostensibly suing to salvage its reputation from Fox’s damaging lies, could have demanded a corrective statement as part of the settlement. It could have taken that shot, which would have imposed ethical accountability on Fox.</p>
<p>But the money was to be made by increasing the settlement price.
The disclosures of Fox’s lying were in court documents already made public, but were published in media not usually patronized by the Fox faithful – and therefore held less negotiation value for Dominion.</p>
<p><em>Correction: This article has been updated to correct the company in which Hootan Yaghoobzadeh is an equity owner.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204246/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John C. Watson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Dominion’s settlement of its defamation suit against Fox News provided a solution for Dominion – but it did nothing to help journalism.John C. Watson, Associate Professor of Journalism, American UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2036492023-04-24T19:57:33Z2023-04-24T19:57:33ZTucker Carlson’s departure and Fox News’ expensive legal woes show the problem with faking ‘authenticity’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522669/original/file-20230424-1075-lksybg.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=9%2C0%2C6390%2C4529&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fox News Host Tucker Carlson speaks during the 2022 Fox Nation Patriot Awards on Nov. 17, 2022, in Hollywood, Fla.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/tucker-carlson-speaks-during-2022-fox-nation-patriot-awards-news-photo/1442331995?adppopup=true">Jason Koerner/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For decades, Fox News thrived because the people behind it understood what their audience wanted and were more than willing to deliver: television news – or what Fox called news – from a populist perspective. </p>
<p>Fox is <a href="https://deadline.com/tag/ratings/">consistently the most-watched cable news channel</a>, far ahead of competitors like MSNBC and CNN. That’s in large part due to people like Tucker Carlson, whose show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2023/02/14/with-35-million-viewers-tucker-carlson-has-the-weeks-highest-rated-cable-news-show/?sh=c4328587f529">has been one of the highest-rated in cable news</a>. But on April 24, Fox announced that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/24/business/media/tucker-carlson-fox-news.html">Carlson is leaving the network</a>, and while no explanation was provided, it’s safe to say it wasn’t a lack of viewers.</p>
<p>Carlson’s departure came on the heels of Fox News’ <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/04/18/business/fox-news-dominion-trial-settlement">US$787.5 million settlement of the lawsuit lodged by Dominion Voting Systems</a> over the network’s promotion of misinformation about the 2020 election. Dominion had <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/fox-news-media-tucker-carlson-part-ways-2023-04-24/#:%7E:text=Dominion%20had%20alleged%20that%20statements,in%20Biden's%20favor%20were%20false.">cited claims made on Carlson’s program</a> as well as on other shows as evidence of defamation, and Carlson <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/04/fox-dominion-trial-tucker-carlson-sean-hannity-testify">was expected to testify</a> if the case had gone to trial. The settlement reveals Fox’s biggest strength and weakness: the network’s incredible understanding of what its audience wants and its unrelenting willingness to deliver exactly that. </p>
<h2>More real than elites</h2>
<p>I’m a journalism scholar who studies <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/imagined-audiences-9780197542606?cc=us&lang=en&">the relationship between the news industry and the public</a>, and I’ve long been interested in <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19312431211060426">understanding Fox’s appeal</a>. As media scholar <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Yk3Elf0AAAAJ&hl=en">Reece Peck</a> observes in <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/american-government-politics-and-policy/fox-populism-branding-conservatism-working-class?format=HB&isbn=9781108496766">his book about the network</a>, Fox’s success is less about politics than it is about style. Fox’s star broadcasters like Carlson <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2022/which-journalists-do-people-pay-most-attention-and-why-study-six-countries">found enormous success</a> by embracing an authenticity-as-a-form-of-populism approach.</p>
<p>They presented themselves as more “real” than the “out-of-touch elites” at other news organizations. Journalists have traditionally attempted to earn audience trust and loyalty by emphasizing their professionalism and objectivity, while people like Carlson earn it by emphasizing an us-against-them anti-elitism where <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/27/fox-news-tucker-carlson-elections/">expertise is more often a criticism than a compliment</a>. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/american-government-politics-and-policy/fox-populism-branding-conservatism-working-class?format=HB&isbn=9781108496766">Peck notes</a>, Fox broadcasters present themselves as “ordinary Americans … challenging the cultural elitism of the news industry.” So the allure of Fox is not just in its political slant, but in its just-like-you presentation that establishes anchors like Carlson as allies in the fight against the buttoned-up establishment figures they regularly disparage. </p>
<p>In short, NPR plays smooth jazz between segments, while <a href="https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/fox-news-partisan-progaganda-research.php">Fox plays country</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A large crowd of people surrounding a small group of people on a public plaza." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Reporters surround Dominion Voting Systems lawyers during a news conference in Wilmington, Del., after the defamation lawsuit by Dominion against Fox News was settled April 18, 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/PicturesoftheWeek-NorthAmerica-PhotoGallery/b8917d7cb42c459396ef17fe971ddcc3/photo?Query=Fox%20News&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=4879&currentItemNo=8">AP Photo/Julio Cortez</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Authenticity’ became a trap</h2>
<p>This anti-establishment, working-class persona embraced by many of Fox’s broadcasters has always been a performance. </p>
<p>Back in 2000, Bill O'Reilly, whom the network would eventually <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/business/media/bill-oreilly-sexual-harassment.html">pay tens of millions of dollars a year</a>, called his show the “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2000/12/13/the-life-of-oreilly/b9cd54fb-3edd-4e68-a489-2e990e3a7bca/">only show from a working-class point of view</a>.” </p>
<p>More recently, Sean Hannity, who is a friend of former President Donald Trump’s and makes about $30 million a year, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/28/hannity-slams-overpaid-media-elites-then-journalists-respond-noting-his-29m-salary-and-private-jet/">slammed “overpaid” media elites</a>. <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/american-government-politics-and-policy/fox-populism-branding-conservatism-working-class?format=HB&isbn=9781108496766">Peck observes</a> that this posturing is purposeful: It emphasizes “Fox’s moral purity, a purity that is established in terms of a distance from the corrupting force of political and media power centers.”</p>
<p>However, the Dominion lawsuit revealed that, after decades of using this distinctly populist – and often misleading – brand of performative authenticity to earn the loyalty of millions of people, Fox became trapped by it. </p>
<p>Internal communications between Fox broadcasters that were revealed in the months leading up to the trial’s scheduled start date showed the network’s marquee acts trying to reconcile their audience’s sense that the 2020 election had been rigged with their own skepticism about that lie. </p>
<p>Messages made public as part of the Dominion suit show Carlson, for example, said that he believed that Sidney Powell, Trump’s lawyer, was lying about election fraud claims. But, he added “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/business/fox-dominion-defamation-case.html">our viewers are good people and they believe it</a>.” Fox wasn’t telling its audience what to believe. Instead, it was following its audience’s lead and presenting a false narrative that aligned with what its viewers wanted to be true.</p>
<p>Once Fox’s broadcasters and the Fox audience became bonded by the network’s outsider status, those broadcasters felt compelled to follow the audience off a cliff of election misinformation and right into a defamation lawsuit. The alternative would run the risk of sullying its populist persona and, ironically, its credibility with its audience. </p>
<p>As New York Times TV critic <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/19/arts/television/fox-news-settlement.html">James Poniewozik observed</a>, “The customer is always right. In fact, the customer is boss.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a suit sits at a desk in front of a bright-blue backdrop." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bill O'Reilly was one of the earliest Fox News hosts to present an ‘everyman’ persona to the viewing public.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/TVOReillyAccuser/909647250fc34130acd81e7a9d51a191/photo">AP Photo/Richard Drew</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A trendsetter and a cautionary tale</h2>
<p>The Dominion lawsuit was more than a rare opportunity to see firsthand just how dishonestly Fox’s talent acted when the cameras were rolling. </p>
<p>It’s also a cautionary tale for those who see so-called authenticity as a marker of trustworthiness in journalism, and in the media more generally. </p>
<p>“As a society, we … love the idea of people ‘being themselves,’” <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/02/social-media-analyst-emily-hund-influencer-authenticity-interview">says scholar Emily Hund</a>, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center on Digital Culture and Society and the author of “<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691231020/the-influencer-industry">The Influencer Industry: The Quest for Authenticity on Social Media</a>.” </p>
<p>The question that many seem to implicitly ask themselves when deciding whether to trust <a href="https://items.ssrc.org/beyond-disinformation/trust-and-authenticity-as-tools-for-journalism-and-partisan-disinformation/">journalists</a> and others within the media world seems to be shifting from “Does this person know what they are talking about?” to “Is this person genuine?”</p>
<p>Media workers have noticed: <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2023/03/social-media-policies-are-failing-journalists/">Journalists</a>, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2023/03/03/stars-are-embracing-authenticity-taylor-swift-prince-harry/11152779002/">celebrities</a> and <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90768656/ugc-influencers-content-marketing">marketers</a> routinely share seemingly personal information about themselves on social media in an effort to present themselves as people first and foremost. These efforts are not always necessarily dishonest; however, they are always a performance.</p>
<p>For decades, Fox’s prolonged popularity has made it clear that authenticity is truly valuable when it comes to building credibility and audience loyalty. Now, the network’s settlement with Dominion has revealed just how manipulative and insincere that authenticity can be.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203649/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacob L. Nelson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Tucker Carlson and his employer, Fox News, had an incredible understanding of what their audience wants: a kind of authenticity that is not genuine but instead manipulative.Jacob L. Nelson, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of UtahLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2040952023-04-19T18:28:12Z2023-04-19T18:28:12ZWhy Fox News’ settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is good news for all media outlets<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/521727/original/file-20230418-3239-g103gl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C51%2C4840%2C3185&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Dominion Voting Systems CEO John Poulos, third from right, leaves court with members of his legal team after reaching a reported $787.5 million settlement with Fox News.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/dominion-voting-systems-ceo-john-poulos-leaves-with-members-news-photo/1483128409?adppopup=true">Alex Wong/ Getty Images News via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s all over but the spinning. </p>
<p>At the eleventh hour, after the jury was sworn in and the lawyers were ready to make their opening statements, the judge presiding over <a href="https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=345820">Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News</a> announced on April 18, 2023, that the “<a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/04/18/fox-news-settles-dominion-lawsuit">parties have resolved the case</a>.”</p>
<p>Little is known about the reported US$787.5 million settlement, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/19/business/fox-news-dominion-settlement.html">one of the largest known defamation awards</a> in the country’s history. Fox issued a vaguely worded statement confirming the merits of Dominion’s defamation claims – “We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false” – but was <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2023/04/18/fox-news-wont-have-to-apologize-for-airing-dominion-lies-in-7875-million-settlement/?sh=756c5989793e">not required to make on-air apologies</a> or corrections. With that, the lawsuit that captured public attention for two years ended. </p>
<p>Dominion’s claims that <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/media/dominion-fox-news-allegations/index.html">Fox and its on-air pundits had damaged the voting equipment company’s reputation</a> by falsely questioning the integrity of its operations during the 2020 elections were the same essential claims that any libel plaintiff must make for a case to proceed to trial. The issue is not truth, alone, but whether false statements harmed the plaintiff’s reputation, and whether the news organization was at fault for publishing those statements. </p>
<p>Presiding <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/31/dominion-lawsuit-fox-trial-00090034">Judge Eric Davis had already ruled</a> that the many accusations Fox hosts and guests hurled at <a href="https://www.dominionvoting.com">Dominion</a> after the 2020 election – most notably that it switched votes from former President Donald Trump to challenger Joe Biden – were false as a matter of law. It was “CRYSTAL clear,” he wrote. All that remained for a jury to decide was whether the statements were made with actual malice. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/521735/original/file-20230418-26-o964v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A throng of lawyers speak facing a large group of journalists holding notebooks, microphones and cameras. Someone holds a sign that reads, " src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/521735/original/file-20230418-26-o964v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/521735/original/file-20230418-26-o964v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521735/original/file-20230418-26-o964v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521735/original/file-20230418-26-o964v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521735/original/file-20230418-26-o964v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521735/original/file-20230418-26-o964v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521735/original/file-20230418-26-o964v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lawyers representing Dominion Voting Systems talk to reporters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/lawyers-representing-dominion-voting-systems-talk-to-news-photo/1483128376?adppopup=true">Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images News via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Actual malice is the legal standard established by the Supreme Court in 1964 in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39">New York Times v. Sullivan</a> that applies to public officials and public figures. In most cases, corporations like Dominion that offer goods or services for sale are also considered public figures, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/485/">as the Supreme Court held in 1984</a> in Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union.</p>
<p>In these cases, corporations must prove that the statements about their businesses were published with knowledge that they are false, or with reckless disregard for whether they were true or not. The high court’s rationale in New York Times v. Sullivan, which involved a police commissioner in Alabama who was unhappy with media coverage of the Civil Rights Movement, was that powerful individuals should not be able to file frivolous suits aimed at silencing the press in order to vindicate their reputations. </p>
<p>As a scholar of media ethics and law, I have followed Dominion’s defamation suit against Fox News closely, because it presented a direct threat to the Sullivan standard, which for nearly 60 years has protected journalists and authors from lawsuits brought by U.S. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-ally-devin-nunes-loses-washington-post-defamation-appeal-2022-04-01/">politicians</a>, <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/468562-federal-judge-tosses-joe-arpaios-300m-defamation-lawsuit-against-cnn/">sheriffs</a>, <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/11th-circuit-refuses-to-revive-war-dogs-defamation-case/">international arms dealers</a>, <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/21-12030/21-12030-2021-12-10.html">political operatives</a> and many others who would seek to punish and curtail robust reporting about them and their activities. </p>
<h2>The facts were on Dominion’s side</h2>
<p>Dominion had a tremendous advantage on the eve of trial. Pretrial discovery revealed a trail of texts and email messages that documented the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/02/16/fox-news-2020-lies-dominion-suit/">doubts of executives, editors and pundits at Fox</a> about the veracity of the claims of a conspiracy to steal the 2020 elections, of which Dominion was supposedly an integral part. </p>
<p>They showed that, although Fox fact-checkers operating in the network’s own “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/04/03/fox-dominion-jeanine-pirro-brain-room/">brain room” had debunked many of these claims</a> as early as Nov. 20, 2020, Fox hosts continued to invite <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dominion-voting-systems-vs-fox-news-the-case-against-conspiracy-theories/">guests like Trump attorneys Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani</a>, who clung to their theory of a vast conspiracy to steal the presidency from Trump. And it appeared that the motivation for these decisions was <a href="https://theconversation.com/anyone-can-claim-to-be-a-journalist-or-a-news-organization-and-publish-lies-with-almost-total-impunity-202083">to try to hold on to viewers</a> who, once they heard <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2022/11/08/the-man-at-fox-news-who-called-arizona-for-biden-in-2020-says-tonight-my-gut-is-leaning-red/?sh=4bf1a97840f2">Fox call the state of Arizona for Biden</a>, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/surge-in-newsmax-ratings-shook-fox-news-then-faded-59e1e373">temporarily decamped to other conservative news outlets</a> like OANN and Newsmax that reinforced their preferred narrative rather than challenge it.</p>
<p>So things didn’t look good for Fox, and that was before the parade of high-profile witnesses, ranging from Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch to hosts like Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, were expected to be <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/04/media/tucker-carlson-sean-hannity-fox-news-dominion/index.html">required to take the witness stand</a> and submit to cross-examination. Dominion’s lawyers, no doubt, were about to evoke the legendary <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/remembering-howard-baker-whose-famous-question-embodied-watergate-hearings">Watergate hearings question</a> – “What did [the president] know and when did he know it?” And Fox’s institutional integrity would be on the line, as well as that of its pundits. </p>
<p>After the settlement was made public, Dominion claimed vindication of its reputation, declaring that “truth matters,” and that “<a href="https://whyy.org/articles/dominion-settles-fox-news-defamation-trial-election-2020/">for our democracy to endure another 250 years</a> … we must share a commitment to facts.” </p>
<p>Fox, for its part, grudgingly conceded that it had to “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/dominions-defamation-case-against-fox-poised-trial-after-delay-2023-04-18/">acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false</a>,” but added that the settlement was really a victory of sorts, because it “reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/521737/original/file-20230418-18-1dcgri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A group of men and women, dressed in suits, some carrying briefcases, all with solemn looks on their faces, cross a city street on a sunny day." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/521737/original/file-20230418-18-1dcgri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/521737/original/file-20230418-18-1dcgri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521737/original/file-20230418-18-1dcgri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521737/original/file-20230418-18-1dcgri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521737/original/file-20230418-18-1dcgri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521737/original/file-20230418-18-1dcgri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521737/original/file-20230418-18-1dcgri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Members of the Fox News legal team leave the Leonard Williams Justice Center after settling a lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems in Delaware Superior Court.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/members-of-the-fox-news-legal-team-including-lawyer-dan-news-photo/1483126979?adppopup=true">Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images News via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I can hear the gales of cynical laughter from many who think Fox has no journalistic standards whatsoever. Those critics must be dismayed that Fox and its employees will not be raked over the coals and otherwise humiliated in the court of public opinion, as well as in the courtroom.</p>
<h2>Disinformation was at the heart of the case</h2>
<p>But those who are disappointed may have been seeking more from this case than a libel suit can deliver. For many, it had become a surrogate for their unhappiness – or even incandescent rage – directed toward Fox for its editorial positions. It was a referendum not only on Fox’s coverage of Dominion, but also on its long-established pattern of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/04/unique-damaging-role-fox-news-plays-american-media/">favoring one political viewpoint</a> over all others, even at the expense of telling the truth. In other words, it was about disinformation and the people who are persuaded by it. </p>
<p>Many people would like to ban disinformation. But who decides what is disinformation? Under U.S. law, we don’t ask government tribunals to decide “the truth.” I have written about how <a href="https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1665&context=uclf">experiences in other countries show</a> that it is dangerous to ask courts, or any instrumentality of government, to do so. </p>
<p>If that sounds improbable, recall that it wasn’t that long ago that Donald Trump, while still a candidate, was calling news media like CNN and The New York Times “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118776010">fake news</a>.” He wanted to “<a href="https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866#:%7E:text=%22One%20of%20the%20things%20I,open%20up%20those%20libel%20laws">open up the libel laws</a>” and threatened to shut these outlets down. If the government decides which media sources are “real” or “fake,” a free press – and freedom of expression as we have known it – will cease to exist. As the <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624">late Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote</a> in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” That means that the law tolerates errors in journalism – which are inevitable – as part of the search for truth. </p>
<p>I hold no brief for Fox. But had the Dominion case gone to the jury, the inevitable appeal by whomever lost would give the Supreme Court the chance to reconsider and possibly eliminate the New York Times v. Sullivan standard that protects all news media of all political stripes. At least two justices, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/02/us/supreme-court-libel.html">Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have indicated</a> they are eager to do just that, even though it has been the constitutional standard for nearly 60 years. Given this court’s willingness to overturn precedent, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">as it did with abortion rights</a>, there is no guarantee that another three justices might not join them. </p>
<p>In the end, this lawsuit was about two questions: Did Fox knowingly publish false statements about Dominion that harmed the company’s reputation, and did it do so knowing, or having reason to know, that they were false? It has already vindicated Dominion and exposed Fox’s questionable practices to the public. Anything more will have to wait for another day, which may come sooner than we think. Smartmatic, which builds electronic voting systems, has a pending libel suit against Fox and <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/smartmatic-remains-committed-to-fox-news-defamation-case-2023-4">is poised to continue the battle</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204095/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane E. Kirtley is a member of the board of the Society of Professional Journalists Foundation. <a href="https://www.spj.org/foundation.asp">https://www.spj.org/foundation.asp</a>
From 1985-1999, she was Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.</span></em></p>Despite Fox News’ questionable ethics, its last-minute settlement with Dominion Voting Systems was a win for all media.Jane E. Kirtley, Professor of Media Ethics and Law, University of MinnesotaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2037412023-04-17T12:43:03Z2023-04-17T12:43:03ZDefamation was at the heart of the lawsuit settled by Fox News with Dominion – proving libel in a court would have been no small feat<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520935/original/file-20230413-20-sbbnce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Election workers in Detroit test their equipment made by Dominion Voting Systems in August 2022.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1242162041/photo/us-vote-election-machines.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=T4CDKTWzYJiLY4tkXMkYIu9nzlRmx3JR9zKjyAo0AJU=">Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The aftershocks of the 2020 presidential election continue to reverberate in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/17/trump-research-voter-fraud-claims-debunked">politics and the media</a> with Fox News Network’s April 18, 2023, US$787.5 million settlement with U.S. Dominion Inc. The settlement puts an end to Dominion’s defamation suit against the network.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/13/media/fox-news-dominion-trial-jury/index.html">Ahead of opening arguments</a> that were slated to begin April 18, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion for alleged defamation. The lawsuit rested on whether false claims Fox hosts and their guests made about Dominion’s voting machines after President Joe Biden was elected were defamatory. <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/04/14/1169858006/the-math-behind-dominion-voting-systems-1-6-billion-lawsuit-against-fox-news.">Dominion sued Fox</a> for $1.6 billion. </p>
<p>Fox News hosts said on air that that there were “voting irregularities” with Dominion’s voting machines – while privately saying that <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fox-news-hosts-allegedly-privately-versus-air-false/story?id=97662551">such claims were baseless</a>. </p>
<p>The statements have already been proved false. Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis <a href="https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=345820">ruled on March 31, 2023</a>, that it “is CRYSTAL clear that <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/31/dominion-lawsuit-fox-trial-00090034">none of the Statements</a> relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.”</p>
<p>The question at hand was whether the statements harmed Dominion’s reputation enough to rise to the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/03/31/1167526374/judge-rules-fox-hosts-claims-about-dominion-were-false-says-trial-can-proceed">level of defamation</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://comm.osu.edu/people/kraft.42">I am a longtime journalist and journalism professor</a> who teaches the realities and challenges of defamation law as it relates to the news industry. Being accused of defamation is among a journalist’s worst nightmares, but it is far easier to throw around as an accusation than it is to actually prove fault.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520937/original/file-20230413-18-yvvfzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A blonde white woman stands facing an electronic voting booth." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520937/original/file-20230413-18-yvvfzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520937/original/file-20230413-18-yvvfzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520937/original/file-20230413-18-yvvfzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520937/original/file-20230413-18-yvvfzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520937/original/file-20230413-18-yvvfzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520937/original/file-20230413-18-yvvfzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520937/original/file-20230413-18-yvvfzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A voter in Atlanta takes part in midterm elections in November 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1244620086/photo/midterm-elections-in-us-state-of-georgia.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=dPhcbNrHmc8c2rz3syqzycPN14uLGifdVdOz-DoR0cg=">Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Understanding defamation</h2>
<p>Defamation happens when someone publishes or publicly broadcasts falsehoods about a person or a corporation in a way that harms their reputation to the point of damage. When the false statements are written, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel">it is legally considered libel</a>. When the falsehoods are spoken or aired on a live TV broadcast, for example, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slander">it is called slander</a>.</p>
<p>To be considered defamation, information or claims must be presented as fact and disseminated so others read or see it and must identify the person or business and offer the information with a reckless <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation">disregard for the truth</a>. </p>
<p>Defamation plaintiffs can be private, ordinary people who must prove the reporting was done with negligence to win their suit. Public people like celebrities or politicians have a higher burden of proof, which is summed up as actual malice, or overt intention to harm a reputation.</p>
<p>The ultimate defense against defamation is truth, but there are others. </p>
<p>Opinion that is <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/journals/news-media-and-law-summer-2011/opinion-defense-remains-str/%5D">not provable fact is protected</a>, for example. </p>
<p>Neutral reportage – a legal term that means <a href="https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1002/neutral-reportage-privilege">the media reports fairly, if inaccurately</a>, about public figures – can legally protect journalists. </p>
<p>But Davis rejected both of those arguments <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/03/31/dominion-fox-lawsuit-summary-ruling/">in the federal Dominion case</a>. </p>
<p>Davis determined Fox aired falsehoods when it allowed Trump supporters to claim on air that Dominion rigged voting machines to increase President Joe Biden’s number of votes. He also said that these actions harmed the Dominion’s reputation. </p>
<h2>Proving actual malice</h2>
<p>The primary question for the jury, which had already been seated, would have been whether Fox broadcasters knew the statements were false when they aired them. If they did, it would mean they acted with actual malice, the standard required to prove a case of defamation for a <a href="https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence">public person, entity or figure</a>. </p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court established actual malice as a legal criterion of defamation in 1964 when L.B. Sullivan, a police commissioner in Alabama, felt his reputation had been harmed by a civil rights ad run in The New York Times that <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/new-york-times-v-sullivan-podcast">contained several inaccuracies</a>. Sullivan sued and was awarded $500,000 by a jury. The state Supreme Court affirmed the <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39">decision and the Times appealed</a>.</p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39">ruled in 1964</a> that proof of defamation required evidence that the advertisement creator had serious doubts about the truth of the statement and published it anyway, with the goal to harm the subject’s reputation. </p>
<p>Simply put, the burden of proof shifted from the <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/an-important-date-in-supreme-court-history-for-the-press">accused to the accuser</a>.</p>
<p>And that is a hurdle most cannot overcome when claiming defamation.</p>
<h2>Why proving defamation is so hard</h2>
<p>It is incredibly hard to prove in court that someone set out do harm in publishing facts that are ultimately proved to be untrue.</p>
<p>Most times, falsehoods in a story are the result of insufficient information at the time of reporting. </p>
<p>Sometimes an article’s inaccuracies are the result of bad reporting. Other times the errors are a result of actual negligence. </p>
<p>This happened when Rolling Stone magazine published an article in 2014 <a href="https://www.bustle.com/articles/74322-where-to-read-rolling-stone-uva-article-a-rape-on-campus-now-its-been-deleted">about the gang rape</a> of a student at the University of Virginia. It turned out that many parts of the story were not true and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/business/media/rolling-stone-rape-story-case-guilty.html">not properly vetted</a> by the magazine. </p>
<p>Nicole Eramo, the former associate dean of students at the University of Virginia, sued Rolling Stone, claiming the story false alleged that she knew about and covered up a gang rape at a fraternity on campus. They <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/12/523527227/rolling-stone-settles-defamation-case-with-former-u-va-associate-dean">reached a settlement</a> on the lawsuit in 2017.</p>
<h2>Not meeting the malice standard</h2>
<p>There are also some recent examples of a defamation lawsuit’s not meeting the actual malice standard.</p>
<p>This includes Alaskan politician Sarah Palin, who <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/business/media/new-york-times.html">sued The New York Times</a> over publication of an editorial in 2017 that erroneously stated her political rhetoric led to a mass shooting. The jury said the information might be inaccurate, but she had not proved actual malice standard.</p>
<p>Long before he was president, Donald Trump had a 2011 libel suit dismissed after a New Jersey appeals court said <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/donald-trump-loses-libel-lawsuit-232923/">there was no proof</a> a book author showed actual malice when he cited three unnamed sources who estimated Trump was a millionaire, not a billionaire. </p>
<p>It is so difficult for public figures to meet the actual malice standard and prove defamation that most defamation defendants spend most of their legal preparation time trying to prove they are not actually in the public eye. Their reputations, according to the court, are not as fragile as that of a private person. </p>
<p>Private people <a href="https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence">must prove only negligence</a> to be successful in a defamation lawsuit. That means that someone did not seriously try to consider whether a statement was true or not before publishing it.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520938/original/file-20230413-16-a8t6uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520938/original/file-20230413-16-a8t6uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520938/original/file-20230413-16-a8t6uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520938/original/file-20230413-16-a8t6uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520938/original/file-20230413-16-a8t6uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520938/original/file-20230413-16-a8t6uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520938/original/file-20230413-16-a8t6uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520938/original/file-20230413-16-a8t6uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protesters gather outside the Fox News headquarters in New York City ahead of the Dominion trial.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1247874462/photo/a-billboard-truck-seen-outside-fox-news-hq-members-of-the.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=ntartb3dfI1g1-LfKcRYfnp37TM6EA82AW2Tg0nkSow=">Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Defamation cases that went ahead</h2>
<p>Some public figures, however, have prevailed in proving defamation. </p>
<p>American actress <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/27/us/carol-burnett-given-1.6-million-in-suit-against-national-enquirer.html">Carol Burnett won the first-ever</a> defamation suit against the National Inquirer when a jury decided a 1976 gossip column describing her as intoxicated in a restaurant encounter with former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger was known to be false when it was published.</p>
<p>Most recently, Cardi B won a defamation lawsuit against a celebrity news blogger who posted videos falsely stating the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-music-arts-and-entertainment-lawsuits-celebrity-87ecf677d5bd7261d57dfd770ec139a9">Grammy-winning rapper used cocaine</a>, had herpes and took part in prostitution.</p>
<h2>The case of Dominion</h2>
<p>Fox’s payout to Dominion – though only half of what Dominion sued for – reportedly shows that the voting machines company <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/18/why-fox-news-had-to-settle-the-dominion-suit-00092708">put together a strong case</a> that Fox acted with actual malice.</p>
<p>But Fox pundits have helped the plaintiff’s case by acknowledging they knew information was false before they aired it and leaving a copious trail of comments such as, “<a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/03/31/1167526374/judge-rules-fox-hosts-claims-about-dominion-were-false-says-trial-can-proceed">this dominion stuff is total bs</a>.”</p>
<p>Fox’s position was that despite knowing claims made by guests about Dominion were false, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/business/fox-news-dominion-trial.html">the claims were newsworthy</a>. </p>
<p>Does this qualify as actual malice or simply bad journalism?</p>
<p>The settlement seems to imply actual malice – and this could send shivers through the political media landscape for years to come. </p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/defamation-is-at-the-heart-of-dominions-lawsuit-against-fox-news-but-proving-it-is-no-small-feat-203741">article originally published on April 17, 2023</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203741/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Kraft does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s far easier to throw around accusations of damage to one’s reputation than it is to actually prove it in court. A journalism scholar explains the criteria that must be met.Nicole Kraft, Associate Professor of Clinical Communication, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2020832023-04-11T12:05:29Z2023-04-11T12:05:29ZAnyone can claim to be a journalist or a news organization, and publish lies with almost total impunity<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520033/original/file-20230410-26-4zi81a.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3090%2C2046&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There are no standards for what it takes to be a journalist.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/participant-seen-holding-a-sign-outside-fox-news-hq-members-news-photo/1247874350?adppopup=true">Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Headlines in early March 2023 implied Fox News mogul Rupert Murdoch had <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/02/28/1159819849/fox-news-dominion-voting-rupert-murdoch-2020-election-fraud">made a damning confession</a>. He had affirmed that some of his most important journalists were reporting that the 2020 presidential election was a fraud – even though they knew they were propagating a lie. </p>
<p>It was an admission during pretrial testimony in a libel lawsuit filed against Fox by a voting machine company that says it was defamed by the lie. For journalism practitioners and devotees, the admission should signal the end of the Fox News empire. </p>
<p>Nope. It didn’t.</p>
<p>Such a disgraceful demise would seem inevitable when journalists – professionally trained truth gatherers, employed by a news organization, which is an institution that exists to provide truthful information – choose not to do so. </p>
<p>Nope.</p>
<p>That’s because a business that calls itself a news organization actually does not have to be one - but it does have to be a business. <a href="https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/lawevents/4/">Businesses exist primarily to make a profit</a> and doing actual news isn’t essential. Adam Serwer, reporting for <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/fox-news-dominion-voting-lawsuit-2020-election-conspiracy/673111/">The Atlantic</a>, wrote “sources at Fox told me to think of it not as a network per se, but as a profit machine.” </p>
<p>News businesses or profit machines can hire anybody who falls off a turnip truck and label them journalists because the job has <a href="https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/reporters-correspondents-and-broadcast-news-analysts.htm">no standardized requirements</a>. </p>
<p>The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics <a href="https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/reporters-correspondents-and-broadcast-news-analysts.htm">lists “None” as requirements</a> for work experience and on-the-job training for journalists but indicates a bachelor’s degree is typical. Accordingly, the Fox News business people could choose to spread election lies and insist, as court documents indicate, that it made good business sense to do so because much of their audience did not want the actual truth about that topic.</p>
<p>These are some of the troubling takeaways from Murdoch’s defense of his news business against <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20527880-dominion-v-fox-news-complaint">a libel lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting</a> Systems, the company implicated by Fox’s election fraud allegations. Fox essentially admits to publishing false information about Dominion, but argues it is nonetheless protected from liability. It is a defense grounded in the <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/">First Amendment</a>, which protects press freedom so robustly that it also protects the irresponsible use of that freedom. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520038/original/file-20230410-3948-1z66xz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two men at a sports game, one younger and one older." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520038/original/file-20230410-3948-1z66xz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520038/original/file-20230410-3948-1z66xz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=344&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520038/original/file-20230410-3948-1z66xz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=344&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520038/original/file-20230410-3948-1z66xz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=344&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520038/original/file-20230410-3948-1z66xz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520038/original/file-20230410-3948-1z66xz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520038/original/file-20230410-3948-1z66xz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lachlan Murdoch, left, and his father, Rupert Murdoch, lead the Fox corporation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rupert-murdoch-and-his-son-lachlan-murdoch-attend-the-news-photo/1027568416?adppopup=true">Jean Catuffe/GC Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>There’s lying … and there’s defamation</h2>
<p>Murdoch’s admission was contained in <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/dominion-fox-news/54e33f20f7fb6e8d/full.pdf">court documents</a> and was revealed in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/business/media/fox-dominion-2020-election.html">a New York Times story</a> published on March 7, 2023. The story was about the US$1.6 billion libel lawsuit <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20527880-dominion-v-fox-news-complaint">filed against Fox News</a> by Dominion, the company Fox journalists repeatedly - and falsely - accused of rigging the 2020 presidential election to make sure Donald Trump lost. </p>
<p>Internal Fox communications, reported by the New York Times, revealed that network journalists and their news executive bosses knew the 2020 election was not fraudulent, yet continued to allow lies about the election - told by hosts and their guests - to be spread to the public. </p>
<p>Dominion claimed Fox’s audience recoiled when its journalists truthfully reported that Trump had lost the election. Dominion’s attorneys asserted that Fox feared the audience would switch their viewing allegiance to upstart conservative news organizations Newsmax and One America News.</p>
<p>In a March 31, 2023, ruling, the judge hearing the case cited examples of Fox’s internal communications that demonstrated how journalism values were supplanted by the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885-dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment">language and values of business</a>. Among them was this quote attributed to a Fox Corporation board member: “If ratings go down, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/02/27/business/media/dominion-fox-news.html">revenue goes down</a>.” The judge also referred to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/business/fox-dominion-defamation-case.html">Dominion’s claim</a> that Fox chose to publish the (false) statements to win back viewers. </p>
<p>Court documents show Dominion’s attorneys asked Murdoch: “What should the consequences be when Fox News executives knowingly allow lies to be broadcast?” Murdoch replied: “They should be reprimanded, maybe got rid of.”</p>
<p>That response aligns with <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html#introductionAndPurpose">principles</a> widely touted by professional news organizations and established in the <a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Ethical+Journalist%3A+Making+Responsible+Decisions+in+the+Digital+Age%2C+3rd+Edition-p-9781119777489">ethical practice</a> of journalism. Although journalism scholars and practitioners vary in their definitions of what a <a href="https://www.cjr.org/special_report/disrupting-journalism-how-platforms-have-upended-the-news-intro.php">news organization is</a> and <a href="https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/whos_a_journalist_zzzzzzzzzzzz.php">who can claim to be a journalist</a>, there is firm agreement that reporting facts, or at least making a good faith effort to do so, is an indispensable mandate for both. </p>
<p>Yet Murdoch has not indicated an intention to discipline en masse Fox News employees who violated that ethical principle. Nor is he required to. </p>
<p>Even the Society of Professional Journalists, the nation’s <a href="https://spj.org/">foremost advocate</a> for ethical journalism, <a href="https://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-code.asp">rejects punishments</a> for those who violate its principles. Its ethics code says in part: “The code is entirely voluntary. … It has no enforcement provisions or penalties for violations, and SPJ strongly discourages anyone from attempting to use it that way.” The organization concedes that news outlets can discipline their own journalists. Because journalists and their employers may be considered to be one entity, any disciplinary action is voluntary self-discipline. Neither journalists nor the news organizations they personify have to be truthful unless they want to. </p>
<p>Lying in the press is unethical but does not necessarily strip liars of the protections <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/709/">provided by the First Amendment</a>. There is an exception to this: the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation">defamatory lie</a>, one that injures a person or organization’s reputation. That is what got Fox News sued.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520045/original/file-20230410-20-t0e1uv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A machine with the words 'Dominion Voting' on it, and a woman walking by in the background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520045/original/file-20230410-20-t0e1uv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520045/original/file-20230410-20-t0e1uv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520045/original/file-20230410-20-t0e1uv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520045/original/file-20230410-20-t0e1uv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520045/original/file-20230410-20-t0e1uv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520045/original/file-20230410-20-t0e1uv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520045/original/file-20230410-20-t0e1uv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The lawsuit filed by the maker of this voting machine, Dominion Voting Systems, charges that Fox News disseminated lies claiming that Dominion rigged the 2020 presidential election against Donald Trump.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/NotRealNews/4ef225a704cd42c383e7e24f7418b3a4/photo?Query=dominion%20lawsuit&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=38&currentItemNo=8">AP Photo/Ben Gray</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Assumptions fall</h2>
<p>Murdoch’s surprising statements were revealed in the lawsuit because his attorneys sought what’s called a “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/summary_judgment">summary judgment</a>” by the judge to decide the case without a trial, in order to avoid the prospect of facing a jury. That move makes sense given that some <a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Law-of-Public-Communication/Lee-Stewart-Peters/p/book/9781032193120?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7bmIi_-L_gIV3v_jBx0A-QzVEAAYASAAEgKm0fD_BwE">law scholars</a> have found that juries rule against media defendants three times out of four. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56">By law</a>, summary judgment is available only when the parties agree on the material facts of the case. </p>
<p>That meant Fox and Murdoch had to admit to Dominion’s most damning allegations, including confessing to broadcasting untrue statements and engaging in other unethical journalism practices. Even with those admissions, the <a href="https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/889/actual-malice">First Amendment’s protection</a> could still give Fox a chance to win the lawsuit - particularly if a jury did not hear the case. </p>
<p>Without reaching trial or a verdict, the Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News lawsuit has already produced some unsettling results. It has challenged journalism disciples’ assumption that news organizations exist to <a href="https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/purpose-journalism/">provide the public with truthful information</a> about the most important issues in their civic lives. It has shaken journalism’s faithful who assume that <a href="https://niemanreports.org/articles/good-journalism-can-be-good-business/">good journalism is never bad</a> for the business of journalism.</p>
<p>Neither assumption is necessarily valid at Fox or anywhere. Anyone can claim to be a journalist, irrespective of their actual function. Any business can claim to be a news organization. Functioning irresponsibly in either role is largely protected by the First Amendment and is therefore optional.</p>
<p>Ethics imposed by independent state bar associations and state medical boards have made professional attorneys and physicians accountable by law as a means of ensuring responsible behavior in their roles, which are considered essential to society. Journalism ethics, which are news organization ethics, are wholly voluntary and can be set aside if they compromise profits. </p>
<p>But if the ethics violations are defamatory, a successful libel lawsuit can impose accountability with a financial cost - money damages.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/202083/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John C. Watson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A news organization doesn’t have to publish or broadcast the facts or the truth. And there are no standardized requirements to be a journalist.John C. Watson, Associate Professor of Journalism, American UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2001522023-03-14T12:23:43Z2023-03-14T12:23:43ZDon’t trust the news media? That’s good<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514930/original/file-20230313-20-dh6jh0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=9%2C3%2C2108%2C1406&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Approach with caution, advises a journalism scholar.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/newsreader-filming-in-press-room-royalty-free-image/694041078?phrase=news%20room&adppopup=true">simon kr/E+/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Everyone seems to hate what they call “the media.” </p>
<p>Attacking journalism – even accurate and verified reporting – provides <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-being-anti-media-is-now-part-of-the-gop-identity/">a quick lift for politicians</a>. </p>
<p>It’s not just Donald Trump. Trump’s rival for the 2024 Republican nomination, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, <a href="https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/gov-ron-desantis-to-speak-in-jacksonville/">recently criticized</a> “the Lefty media” for telling “lies” and broadcasting “a hoax” about his policies.</p>
<p>Criticizing the media emerged as an effective bipartisan political tactic in the 1960s. GOP Sen. Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign got the ball rolling by needling the so-called “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/opinions/lyndon-johnson-barry-goldwater-liberal-media-bias-hemmer/index.html">Eastern liberal press</a>.” </p>
<p>Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s lies about the Vietnam War clashed with accurate reporting, and a “credibility gap” arose – the growing public skepticism about the administration’s truthfulness – to the obvious irritation of the president. Johnson complained CBS News and NBC News were so biased he thought their reporting seemed “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/opinion/lyndon-johnson-vietnam-war.html">controlled by the Vietcong</a>.”</p>
<p>Democrats like Chicago’s Mayor Richard J. Daley, who complained bitterly about news coverage of the 1968 Democratic convention – labeling it “<a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/02/how-fake-news-was-born-at-the-1968-dnc-219627/">propaganda</a>” – and Federal Communications <a href="https://law.uiowa.edu/people/nicholas-johnson">Commissioner Nicholas Johnson</a>, who published “<a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/59804">How to Talk Back to Your Television Set</a>” in 1970, argued that “Eastern,” “commercial” and “corporate” media interests warped or “censored” the news. </p>
<p>In 1969, Republican President Richard Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew, launched a public <a href="https://theconversation.com/he-was-trump-before-trump-vp-spiro-agnew-attacked-the-news-media-50-years-ago-122980">campaign against news corporations</a> that instantly made him a conservative celebrity. </p>
<p>Agnew warned that increased concentration in news media ownership ensured control over public opinion by a “tiny and closed fraternity of privileged men, <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2019/11/10/fifty-years-ago-spiro-agnew-and-des-moines-speech/4166207002/">elected by no one</a>.” Similar criticism emerged from leftists, including <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/78912/manufacturing-consent-by-edward-s-herman-and-noam-chomsky/">MIT linguist Noam Chomsky</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514934/original/file-20230313-26-hjldur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man with a receding hairline and gray hair talking into a microphone." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514934/original/file-20230313-26-hjldur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514934/original/file-20230313-26-hjldur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514934/original/file-20230313-26-hjldur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514934/original/file-20230313-26-hjldur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514934/original/file-20230313-26-hjldur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514934/original/file-20230313-26-hjldur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514934/original/file-20230313-26-hjldur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Vice President Spiro Agnew said in 1969 that concentrated news media ownership ensured control over public opinion by a ‘tiny and closed fraternity of privileged men, elected by no one.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-politician-us-vice-president-spiro-agnew-speaks-news-photo/846059208?phrase=Spiro%20Agnew&adppopup=true">David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The bipartisan popularity of news media criticism continued to grow as politicians found attacking the messengers the fastest way to avoid engaging in discussion of unpleasant realities. Turning the spotlight back on the media also helped political figures portray themselves as victims, while focusing partisan anger at specific villains.</p>
<p>Now, only 26% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the news media, according <a href="https://knightfoundation.org/reports/american-views-2023-part-2/">to a poll published in February 2023</a> by Gallup and the Knight Foundation. Americans across the political spectrum share a growing disdain for journalism – no matter how accurate, verified, professional or ethical.</p>
<p>Yet open debate over journalism ethics signals healthy governance. Such argumentation might amplify polarization, but it also facilitates the exchange of diverse opinions and encourages critical analyses of reality.</p>
<h2>Journalistic failures damaged trust</h2>
<p>Americans grew to distrust even the best news reporting because their political leadership encouraged it. But multiple failures exposed over the past several decades also further eroded journalistic credibility. </p>
<p>Long before <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/mar/09/digitalmedia.tvnews">bloggers ended Dan Rather’s CBS News career in 2005</a>, congressional investigations, civil lawsuits and scandals revealing unethical and unprofessional behavior within even the most respected journalism outlets doomed the profession’s public reputation.</p>
<p>In 1971, CBS News aired “<a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Selling-of-the-Pentagon">The Selling of the Pentagon</a>,” an investigation that revealed the government spent tax dollars to produce pro-military domestic propaganda during the Vietnam War. </p>
<p>The program <a href="https://www.byrdcenter.org/blog/the-selling-of-the-pentagon-staggers-v-cbs">infuriated U.S. Rep. Harley Staggers</a>, who accused CBS of using “the nation’s airwaves … to deliberately deceive the public.” </p>
<p>Staggers launched an investigation and subpoenaed CBS News’ unpublished, confidential materials. CBS News President Frank Stanton <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1971/04/10/archives/cbs-gains-support-for-defiance-of-subpoena.html">defied the subpoena</a> and was eventually vindicated by a vote of Congress. But Staggers, a West Virginia Democrat, publicly portrayed <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1971/07/13">CBS News as biased</a> by insinuating the network had much to hide. <a href="https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,904979,00.html">Many Americans agreed with him</a>. </p>
<p>“The Selling of the Pentagon” was the first of many investigations and lawsuits that damaged the credibility of journalism by exposing – or threatening to expose – the messy process of assembling news. As with the recent <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/03/06/1161221798/if-fox-news-loses-defamation-dominion-media">embarrassing revelations about Fox News</a> exposed by the Dominion lawsuit, whenever the public gets access to the backstage behavior, private opinions and hypocritical actions of professional journalists, reputations will suffer. </p>
<p>But even the remarkable Fox News revelations shouldn’t be considered unique.</p>
<h2>Repeated lying</h2>
<p>Numerous respected news organizations have been caught lying to their audiences. Though such episodes are rare, they can be enormously damaging. </p>
<p>In 1993, General Motors <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/10/us/nbc-settles-truck-crash-lawsuit-saying-test-was-inappropriate.html">sued NBC News</a>, accusing the network of deceiving the public by secretly attaching explosives to General Motors trucks, and then blowing them up to exaggerate a danger.</p>
<p>NBC News admitted it, settled the lawsuit and news division President Michael Gartner resigned. The case, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/02/10/nbc-apologizes-for-staged-crash-settles-with-gm/fe1d1da2-9939-4076-a7e2-8e625d7ddede/">concluded The Washington Post’s media critic</a>, “will surely be remembered as one of the most embarrassing episodes in modern television history.”</p>
<p>Additional examples abound. Intentional deception – knowingly lying by consciously publishing or broadcasting fiction as fact – <a href="https://cjc.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.22230/cjc.2006v31n1a1595">occurs often enough in professional journalism</a> to cyclically embarrass the industry.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514946/original/file-20230313-26-3kx646.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A screenshot of a clipping from the New York Times, July 2, 1971, about a contempt vote against CBS and its top executive." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514946/original/file-20230313-26-3kx646.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514946/original/file-20230313-26-3kx646.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514946/original/file-20230313-26-3kx646.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514946/original/file-20230313-26-3kx646.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514946/original/file-20230313-26-3kx646.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=927&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514946/original/file-20230313-26-3kx646.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=927&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514946/original/file-20230313-26-3kx646.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=927&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A front page story in The New York Times on July 2, 1971, with details about the conflict in Congress over the CBS documentary ‘The Selling of the Pentagon.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1971/07/02/issue.html">New York Times archive</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In cases such as <a href="https://www.cjr.org/the_feature/the_fabulist_who_changed_journalism.php">Janet Cooke and The Washington Post</a>, <a href="https://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=1838">Stephen Glass and the New Republic</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/us/correcting-the-record-times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception.html">Jayson Blair</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2002/02/22/new-york-times-feature-was-fiction/35e234a4-9cb6-47b8-8e1c-3bc95a0cb34d/">Michael Finkel</a> of The New York Times, and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/01/business/media/atlantic-ruth-shalit-barrett.html">Ruth Shalit Barrett and The Atlantic</a>, the publication of actual fabrications was exposed. </p>
<p>These episodes of reportorial fraudulence were not simply errors caused by sloppy fact-checking or journalists being deceived by lying sources. In each case, journalists lied to improve their careers while trying to help their employers attract larger audiences with sensational stories.</p>
<p>This self-inflicted damage to journalism is every bit equal to the attacks launched by politicians. </p>
<p>Such malfeasance undermines confidence in the news media’s ability to fulfill its constitutionally protected responsibilities. If few Americans are willing to believe even the most verified and factual reporting, then the ideal of debate grounded in shared facts may become anachronistic. It may already be.</p>
<h2>Media criticism as democratic participation</h2>
<p>The pervasive amount of news media criticism in the U.S. has intensified the erosion of trust in American journalism. </p>
<p>But such discussion can be seen as a sign of democratic health. </p>
<p>“Everyone in a democracy is <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674695870&content=toc">a certified media critic</a>, which is as it should be,” media sociologist Michael Schudson once wrote. Imagine how intimidated citizens would respond to pollsters in Russia, China or North Korea if asked whether they trusted their media. To question official media “truth” in these nations is to risk incarceration or worse. </p>
<p>Just look at Russia. As Putin’s regime censored independent media and pumped out propaganda, <a href="https://twitter.com/YaroslavConway/status/1627374815697936385">the nation’s least skeptical citizens</a> became the war’s foremost supporters.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://cmj.umaine.edu/faculty-staff/michael-j-socolow/">media scholar and former journalist</a>, I believe more reporting on the media, and criticism of journalism, is always better than less.</p>
<p>Even that Gallup-Knight Foundation report chronicling lost trust in the media <a href="https://knightfoundation.org/reports/american-views-2023-part-2/">concluded that</a> “distrust of information or [media] institutions is not necessarily bad,” and that “some skepticism may be beneficial in today’s media environment.”</p>
<p>People choose the media they trust and criticize the media they consider less credible. Intentional deception scandals have been exposed at outlets as different as The New York Times, Fox News and NBC News. Just as the effort to demean the media has long been bipartisan, revelations of malfeasance have historically plagued media across the political spectrum. Nobody can yet know the long-term effect the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20527880-dominion-v-fox-news-complaint">Dominion lawsuit</a> will have on the credibility of Fox News specifically, but media scholars know the scandal will justifiably further erode the public’s trust in the media.</p>
<p>An enduring democracy will encourage rather than discourage media criticism. Attacks by politicians and exposure of unethical acts clearly lower public trust in journalism. But measured skepticism can be healthy and media criticism comprises an essential component of media literacy – and a vibrant democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/200152/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael J. Socolow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Journalism has been fodder for politicians’ contempt for generations. A huge percentage of the public doesn’t trust the news media either. That mistrust isn’t a bad thing in a democracy.Michael J. Socolow, Associate Professor, Communication and Journalism, University of MaineLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1956342023-01-18T13:38:02Z2023-01-18T13:38:02ZFictional newsman Ted Baxter was more invested in fame than in good journalism – but unlike today’s pundits, he didn’t corrupt the news<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504264/original/file-20230112-60681-z7fdw6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C17%2C3906%2C2910&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fictional anchorman Ted Baxter, center, flanked by newsroom boss Lou Grant and colleague Mary Richards, on 'The Mary Tyler Moore Show' in 1970.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/newsroom-boss-lou-grant-newscaster-ted-baxter-and-mary-news-photo/517428674?phrase=Ted%20Baxter&adppopup=true">Bettmann/Getty</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Pundits are commonplace in today’s cable news environment, with <a href="https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444">politically tilted news coverage</a> coming from both left and right. Particularly dangerous are characters like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, who have stoked anger and polarization by promoting bigotry and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/11/business/media/vaccines-fox-news-hosts.html">spreading misinformation about COVID-19</a> <a href="https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/the-damage-being-done-by-fox-news/">and the 2020 election</a>. </p>
<p>It’s sobering, then, to recall that during its first half-century of existence, from the 1950s until the ascendance of slanted channels such as Fox News and MSNBC, TV news strove for fairness and objectivity.</p>
<p>In the old days, analysis that provided a point of view was explicitly labeled as “commentary.” It was believed to be helpful to viewers, whom the news divisions understood not just as consumers – what advertisers cared about – but also as citizens. </p>
<p>Ed Klauber, who set CBS News standards in the 1930s, declared that “<a href="https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p069413">in a democracy</a> it is important that people not only should know but should understand, and it is the analysts’ function to help the listener to understand, to weigh and to judge, but not to do the judging for him.” Fred Friendly, CBS News president from 1964 to 1966, distributed Klauber’s guidelines to his team on pocket-size cards. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504269/original/file-20230112-26-gzyrng.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man with glasses and wavy hair and a receding hairline, wearing a jacket and tie." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504269/original/file-20230112-26-gzyrng.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504269/original/file-20230112-26-gzyrng.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=911&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504269/original/file-20230112-26-gzyrng.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=911&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504269/original/file-20230112-26-gzyrng.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=911&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504269/original/file-20230112-26-gzyrng.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1145&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504269/original/file-20230112-26-gzyrng.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1145&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504269/original/file-20230112-26-gzyrng.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1145&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">CBS News President Fred Friendly.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/friendly-fred-w-former-pres-cbs-news-news-photo/161968179?phrase=Fred%20Friendly%20CBS&adppopup=true">Denver Post/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The national news appeared on only three channels, and the networks strove for political neutrality. They were seeking a wide, mass audience but were also influenced by their own professional standards and the government-imposed <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine">Fairness Doctrine</a> requiring balanced coverage of controversial issues. Within this context, celebrity <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Walter-Cronkite">anchormen like Walter Cronkite</a> and <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/David-Brinkley">David Brinkley</a> downplayed their own stardom.</p>
<p>Back then, the only TV newsman with an oversized personality who was familiar to a national audience was an entirely fictional one: <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jul-16-et-kaltenbach16-story.html">Ted Baxter, of “The Mary Tyler Moore Show</a>,” a character who was funny precisely because he was so implausible. The sitcom, which ran from 1970 to 1977, centered on a single woman working in a TV newsroom in Minneapolis. Baxter was the station’s anchorman, and his incompetence doomed the “Six O'Clock News” to low ratings. </p>
<p>Notwithstanding the common perception that it was an unprofitable, strictly altruistic venture, the national news did make <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884910379707">significant revenue from their nightly broadcasts</a>. Still, the lofty objective of these operations was public service. There was a baseline understanding that <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/saving-the-news-9780190948412?cc=us&lang=en&">democracy demands a free press and an informed electorate</a>.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/33733/a-reporters-life-by-walter-cronkite/">Cronkite argued in his memoir</a>, encapsulating – and also mythologizing – the ideals of that era, “Newspapers and broadcasting, insofar as journalism goes, are public services essential to the successful working of our democracy. It is a travesty that they should be required to pay off like any other stock-market investment.” </p>
<p>Ted Baxter, played by actor Ted Knight, had no such concerns. Like many of today’s pundits – though without their ideological commitments – he was an anchorman more invested in fame than in good journalism.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gl3o7Tc9xiI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Ted Baxter being Ted Baxter.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Alive in Minneapolis, dead in Tokyo</h2>
<p>Ted Baxter was a slow-witted egomaniac. </p>
<p>To pick up extra cash, he did <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhvNfg8Nw1E">undignified commercials</a> for sausage, dog food and even some kind of befuddling “woman’s product.” Impressed by the very existence of time zones, he once said, “It’s actually tomorrow in Tokyo. Do you realize that there are people alive here in Minneapolis who are already dead in Tokyo?”</p>
<p>His only professional assets were good looks and a fine baritone. In one episode, a blizzard made the <a href="https://youtu.be/U9A3-xvj_Y4">phones go down during local election coverage</a>. Unable to receive updates on the vote count, the news team was forced to pull an all-nighter until a winner could be accurately declared. </p>
<p>Baxter wanted to call the race prematurely so he could go home, a flagrant dereliction of duty. </p>
<p>Forced to stay, he displayed his typical incompetence, mistakenly reading the entirety of a cue card aloud on the air: “We’ll stay on the air until a winner is declared. Take off glasses, look concerned.” </p>
<p>Ted’s priority was stardom. When he was tempted to quit the news for a lucrative job as a game show host, his boss, Lou Grant, played by Ed Asner, talked him out of it by evoking the higher purpose embodied by newsmen like CBS’ acclaimed <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/06/books/always-on-the-side-of-the-heretics.html">Edward R. Murrow</a>. </p>
<p>Ted was nothing like Murrow, as confirmed in the next scene, when he reported about a fishing boat incident and then improvised a joke: a woman tells her sailor husband in bed, “not tonight, I have a haddock.” Ted Baxter revered Murrow as a celebrity, and his hero was Cronkite, but gravitas was simply impossible for him. </p>
<p>When Cronkite made a cameo appearance on the show in 1974, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79A4vF2UsQM">Ted was positively giddy</a>. Cronkite was a bit wooden, underscoring the fact that he was not an actor, thereby implicitly upholding a more dignified standard than Ted. </p>
<p>In fact, Dick Salant, who succeeded Friendly at CBS, had <a href="https://txarchives.org/utcah/finding_aids/01267.xml">initially refused the invitation to Cronkite</a> from the show’s producers. He was anxious that Cronkite should not deliver “lines written for him in a fictitious role,” fearing it would undercut Cronkite’s trustworthy image.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SAqico6hHqQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Walter Cronkite appeared on ‘The Mary Tyler Moore Show’ on Feb. 9, 1974.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Cronkite was a fan of the show, declaring, “<a href="https://txarchives.org/utcah/finding_aids/01267.xml">The newsroom operation is realistic — even with Ted</a>.” </p>
<h2>Baxter couldn’t corrupt the news</h2>
<p>If there is anything “realistic” about the satirical, fictional Ted Baxter, though, it’s that he lived up to the norms of political neutrality that really did dominate national newscasts in the 1970s — notwithstanding President Richard Nixon and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHuA5_yTok8">Vice President Spiro Agnew</a>’s ferocious accusations of “<a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo183630531.html">liberal bias</a>.”</p>
<p>Today’s grandstanding cable news pundits may provoke nostalgia for the Cronkite days – and the Baxter days – but nostalgia has a way of blurring over all the unpleasant details. </p>
<p>The news was already in trouble in the Nixon years. The president had planted the idea that the mainstream media suffered from liberal bias, a notion <a href="https://www.heritage.org/insider/fall-2019-insider/interview-carrie-lukas">which was then nurtured by</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/19/us/reed-irvine-82-the-founder-of-a-media-criticism-group-dies.html">right-wing groups</a> like Accuracy in Media and the Heritage Foundation. </p>
<p>Newscasters accustomed to reporting “both sides” were under constant attack in the 1970s. <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/226578">Nixon besieged the networks</a> with every dirty trick, from Federal Communications Commission pressure to IRS audits. He even dreamed that cable TV could solve his problems by <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.9783/9780812293746-011/pdf">breaking the network news monopoly</a>.</p>
<p>On this count, Nixon was right. Cable did end network dominance and enable the rise of <a href="https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/nicole-hemmer/partisans/9781541646872/">highly politicized, overtly biased, personality-driven news</a>. </p>
<p>But the triumph of Baxterism was never what “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” promoted. Just the opposite.</p>
<p>Ted Baxter was a cautionary figure who showed that real news could never succeed by depending on style over substance. Ted kept letting everyone down in order to teach viewers a lesson: Even a dolt who prized financial reward over integrity could not corrupt the news, as long as others held it to a higher standard. </p>
<p>In an episode called “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw0k4o46Pcs">The Good-Time News</a>,” for example, the station manager demanded a “more entertaining” format to bring up the ratings. Lou Grant protested that “news is truth … I’m not going to make it into something fake.” </p>
<p>Lou was right. The new format was a disaster, with Ted’s offensive “good-time” banter provoking angry telegrams. </p>
<p>Fool that he was, Ted nonetheless represented a golden age of TV news. If he could have read cue cards without flubbing up, he might have even been a decent anchorman. But he never could have been a pundit. </p>
<p>Ted never boosted a favorite politician or a conspiracy theory. He was politically vacant. He once ran for office as a Democrat, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmDtRMvJUww">even though he was a registered Republican</a>. He really didn’t care – he only wanted to increase his fan base.</p>
<p>Ted Baxter thus embodied the ego of the pundit, but without the opinions that often make such a person dangerous. For all his incompetence, it never occurred to him to air his own political views. By network news standards of the 1970s, this made him a friend of democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195634/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Heather Hendershot does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Today’s anchors on politically slanted news programs feed anger and polarization with their wild claims. Their ancestor is a character from ‘The Mary Tyler Moore Show’ – with one big difference.Heather Hendershot, Professor of Film and Media, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1903212022-11-02T12:30:23Z2022-11-02T12:30:23ZWomen get fewer chances to speak on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, according to an AI-powered, large-scale analysis of interruptions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492672/original/file-20221031-22-64sskb.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1125%2C629&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There are gender differences in who gets to speak and who interrupts on cable news discussions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/09/02/lead-political-panel-live.cnn">CNN</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em> </p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>My colleagues and I used artificial intelligence to analyze hundreds of thousands of dialogues on cable news programs in order to better understand the <a href="https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2022/724">nature of interruptions in political discussions</a>. We found that women get substantially fewer opportunities to speak in those settings than men, and perhaps as a result they tend to interrupt more often than men.</p>
<p>Analyzing interruptions at this scale provides meaningful insights into subtle conversational dynamics and how they vary across race, gender, occupation and political orientation. In addition to gender differences, we found that across CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, conversations between people who hold opposite political beliefs are riddled with far more intrusive and unfriendly interruptions than those between people who share a political affiliation.</p>
<p>I’m a computer scientist who <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=mWyMp38AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate">uses AI to study social science questions</a>. In collaboration with <a href="https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2022/724">student AI researchers from Carnegie Mellon University</a>, we developed AI methods that reliably distinguish <a href="https://www.psychmechanics.com/psychology-of-interrupting/">intrusive and unfriendly interruptions from those that are benign</a>. Intrusive interruptions aim to take over a conversation or stifle the speaker, and benign interruptions aim to support the speaker with helpful information or indications of agreement.</p>
<p>Through a year-long effort, we analyzed 625,409 dialogues containing interruptions found in 275,420 transcripts from the three cable news networks spanning January 2000 and July 2021. We found that female speakers on the networks got out an average of 72.8 words per chance to speak compared to 81.4 for male speakers. We also found that female speakers interrupted in 39.4% of dialogues compared to 35.9% for male speakers. However, the women had a better ratio of benign to intrusive interruptions than the men did: 85.5% to 75.4%.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lxiZZORxUPY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">This political discussion on CNN between people of different genders and political viewpoints features numerous intrusive interruptions.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>Our AI techniques could be used to provide real-time interruption analysis of talk shows, interviews and political debates. Post-debate analyses revealed that during the third U.S. Presidential debate in 2020, Donald Trump <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/10/23/21529607/biden-trump-debate-won-interrupt-kristen-welker-presidential">interrupted twice as much</a> as Joe Biden. Real time analyses can be useful to call out serial interrupters, inform the audience during the debate and perhaps help in ensuring civil discourse.</p>
<p>We also studied the evolution of unfriendly interruptions over those two decades. This research reveals that the rate of unfriendly or intrusive interruptions has been gradually increasing, with the period during the Trump-Clinton 2016 campaign producing the sharpest spike in intrusive interruptions among commentators. </p>
<p>This result points to the deepening political divide in the U.S. previously documented in research on <a href="https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/18049">news consumption patterns</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2022/702">media portrayals</a> of major issues such as policing, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1304">social media discussions of events</a> and the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v35i17.17748">language of partisan news audiences</a>.</p>
<h2>What other research is being done</h2>
<p>Other researchers have been studying interruptions in political speech in other contexts than cable news broadcasts, including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/717083">legislative speeches</a>.</p>
<p>While interruptions have been extensively analyzed in <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/gender-and-conversational-interaction-9780195081947?q=tannen&lang=en&cc=us#">social science literature</a> for decades, our study used AI techniques to study interruptions at an unprecedented scale.</p>
<h2>What still isn’t known</h2>
<p>Interruptions could be categorized with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90011-6">more nuance than just considering them intrusive or benign</a>. Our current methods are not robust enough to detect these nuances reliably. </p>
<p>Our analysis also suffers from selection bias because it only considers people who appeared in major news networks and thus probably wield considerable social influence. We do not know whether our results would generalize to broader groups, for example from male politicians to all men.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190321/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ashique KhudaBukhsh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An analysis of hundreds of thousands of interactions on cable news programs shows that women interrupt more often than men – and it may be because they also have to fight for equal airtime.Ashique KhudaBukhsh, Assistant Professor of Computing and Information Sciences, Rochester Institute of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1924032022-11-02T04:50:36Z2022-11-02T04:50:36ZThe first biography of Lachlan Murdoch provides some insights, but leaves important questions unanswered<p>The title of Paddy Manning’s <a href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/successor">The Successor: The High-Stakes Life of Lachlan Murdoch</a> tells us what is good and not so good about this biography.</p>
<p>It is a smart play on the title of the much-applauded HBO television series, <a href="https://www.hbo.com/succession">Succession</a>, which everyone except the show’s creators says is modelled on the decades-long corporate psychodrama within the Murdoch family. The Murdochs have said little about the Emmy Award-winning show, but in a knowing wink they chose to use Succession’s grandly jarring theme music in a tribute to Rupert at his 90th birthday party.</p>
<p>I say “Rupert” because he has long since joined the small club of globally famous figures known by their first name. Not so Lachlan Murdoch, Rupert’s third child but, importantly for him, his eldest son.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Review: The Successor: The High-Stakes Life of Lachlan Murdoch – Paddy Manning (Black Inc.)</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The book’s subtitle is the giveaway. If a “high-stakes life” was Lachlan Murdoch’s defining feature, would it need to be spelt out? The subtitle of a biography of, say, Don Bradman, does not need to inform us of his “high-stakes” life as a cricketer.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492502/original/file-20221031-19-a0kbeu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492502/original/file-20221031-19-a0kbeu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492502/original/file-20221031-19-a0kbeu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=917&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492502/original/file-20221031-19-a0kbeu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=917&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492502/original/file-20221031-19-a0kbeu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=917&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492502/original/file-20221031-19-a0kbeu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492502/original/file-20221031-19-a0kbeu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492502/original/file-20221031-19-a0kbeu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Lachlan Murdoch turned 50 last year. He is executive chair and chief executive of Fox Corporation, co-chair of News Corporation, founder of the investment company Illyria Pty Limited, and executive chair of Nova Entertainment. He was in his mid-twenties when he first headed the Australian arm of News Limited, as it was then known. In recent years, after several twists and turns, he has become the anointed heir to Rupert’s global media empire. But he still sits deep in the shadow of his father.</p>
<p>In June, the small independent news website Crikey published an <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/06/29/january-six-hearing-donald-trump-comfirmed-unhinged-traitor/">opinion piece</a> arguing the Murdoch-owned Fox Corporation bore at least some responsibility for the January 6 riots at the Capitol in Washington. Many read it as referring to Rupert, but it was Lachlan who <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/08/24/crikey-statement-lachlan-murdoch/">sued for defamation</a>.</p>
<p>The ensuing commentary noted that Rupert has never sued a journalist for defamation and asked whether Lachlan is thin-skinned. It is a fair question, given Lachlan has sued a journalist before for inaccurately reporting his use of the company’s private jet. </p>
<p>But it vaults over at least one reason Rupert has not sued: he has an army of his own journalists, who can be deployed to fight battles on his behalf. And they do. A relevant example is what happened to an authorised biographer, who slipped his minders and published a far less flattering portrait than had been anticipated.</p>
<p>Rupert gave more than 50 hours of interviews to Michael Wolff and greenlit his access to key senior people in News Corporation, but the resulting biography, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4846256-the-man-who-owns-the-news">The Man Who Owns the News: Inside the Secret World of Rupert Murdoch</a> (2008), reportedly infuriated Murdoch. It revealed, for instance, that the ageing media mogul was dyeing his hair to impress Wendi Deng, who is the same age as his second daughter, and who became his third wife in 1999. </p>
<p>The biography was not mentioned in News Corporation’s US outlets until March 2009, when the Murdoch-owned tabloid the New York Post reported Wolff’s marital troubles in its <a href="https://pagesix.com/2009/03/30/bald-truth-divorce-for-wolff/">Page Six gossip column</a>. “The bald, trout-pouted Vanity Fair writer, 55,” as Wolff was described, had been carrying on a “steamy public affair” with a 28-year-old intern, prompting his wife to evict him from their Manhattan apartment. So there.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/rupert-murdoch-at-90-why-the-old-mogul-may-have-one-final-act-in-him-yet-156901">Rupert Murdoch at 90: why the old mogul may have one final act in him yet</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>An unauthorised account</h2>
<p>At least a half a dozen biographies have been written about Rupert, but The Successor is the first biography of Lachlan Murdoch. That alone makes it noteworthy. It is unauthorised and Lachlan was not interviewed for it, so it draws primarily on interviews with friends, colleagues and enemies, and on secondary sources, notably a good use of overseas media sources. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492503/original/file-20221031-15-8wzpb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492503/original/file-20221031-15-8wzpb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492503/original/file-20221031-15-8wzpb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=881&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492503/original/file-20221031-15-8wzpb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=881&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492503/original/file-20221031-15-8wzpb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=881&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492503/original/file-20221031-15-8wzpb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1107&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492503/original/file-20221031-15-8wzpb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1107&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492503/original/file-20221031-15-8wzpb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1107&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lachlan Murdoch at the Vanity Fair Oscar Party, February 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Evan Agostini/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It draws less heavily on the voluminous academic literature about the Murdoch media, though when it does, Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris and Hal Roberts’ book <a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/26406">Network Propaganda</a> (2018) is quoted to good effect. Discussing the role of the Fox News television network, they write: “Conspiracy theories that germinate in the nether regions of the internet stay there unless they find an amplification vector”.</p>
<p>What do we learn about the person who wields so much media power and influence? About Lachlan himself, not much. About Lachlan as a businessman, a bit more. About how Lachlan compares with Rupert and what that might mean for the media – and us, the audience – a good deal more.</p>
<p>The portrait that emerges of Lachlan is drawn in bright colours – he has an adventurous spirit, tattoos, boyish good-looks; he is friendly and easygoing – but it does not have much depth. There are endless descriptions, in real-estate brochure mode, of overlong yachts and stylishly appointed bathrooms in multi-million dollar mansions dotted across the globe. And there are numerous gossipy accounts of parties with Tom and Nicole and Baz. </p>
<p>Manning plumbs the standard biographical sources of his subject’s formative years, but they yield little of much import. At several points Joe Cross, a futures trader friend, is wheeled in to provide testimonials that are the verbal equivalent of eyewash. Here he is on Lachlan meeting his future wife, Sarah O’Hare:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It was on […] he’s like, hook, line and sinker gone. And fair enough! With Sarah, she’s the whole package, she’s like a completely down-to-earth knockabout Aussie, being a supermodel didn’t hurt, and she loves all the things that Lachlan loved […] and she’s got a whole group of fabulous friends that now come together with his tight group of mates, and everyone gets on.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>More fruitfully, Manning recounts how Lachlan, for his final year thesis in an arts degree at Princeton, wrote about Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative as inflected by the ideas in the Bhagavad Gita. The thesis was good, according to his supervisor, Professor Beatrice Longuenesse. But what stayed with her, as reported by a journalist who interviewed her many years later, was how Lachlan resembled many other graduates of elite universities, who “glide to the highest reaches of the business world, which they do not tend to disrupt with the lofty ideas they explored as undergraduates”. </p>
<h2>Family business</h2>
<p>Perhaps the most interesting insight is the extent to which Lachlan is conscious of his family and its history. The family business and the business of the family are pillars around which his life revolves, both by birthright and by choice. He remembers everything negative written about his father, and is fiercely protective of both him and the memory of his grandfather, Keith Murdoch, who for many years headed the Herald and Weekly Times. </p>
<p>Surprisingly for an accomplished journalist, Manning tacitly accepts an abiding myth of the Murdoch family – Keith’s heroic role in writing the so-called “Gallipoli letter” during the first world war. Lachlan retold the story when his grandfather was inducted into the Melbourne Press Club’s Hall of Fame in 2012. </p>
<p>That Sir Keith’s letter was, in important ways, misleading and sensationalised has been discussed by several journalists and authors, including Les Carlyon in his bestselling book <a href="https://www.panmacmillan.com.au/9781743534229/">Gallipoli</a>, Mark Baker in his biography of another Gallipoli correspondent, <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/the-myth-of-keith-murdochs-gallipoli-letter/">Phillip Schuler</a>, and by Tom Roberts in his award-winning 2015 <a href="https://theconversation.com/book-review-before-rupert-keith-murdoch-and-the-birth-of-a-dynasty-49491">biography of Keith Murdoch</a>. </p>
<p>Not that Lachlan has always deferred to his father. Manning recounts his subject’s fury when, in 1999, Rupert reneged on an agreement with his second wife Anna, Lachlan’s mother, who had “given up her claim to an equal share of Rupert’s fortune precisely to ensure that Prudence, Elisabeth, Lachlan and James would not have to share the control or assets of the Murdoch Family Trust with any children from Rupert’s marriage to Wendi Deng”.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492903/original/file-20221102-28436-59h8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492903/original/file-20221102-28436-59h8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492903/original/file-20221102-28436-59h8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=772&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492903/original/file-20221102-28436-59h8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=772&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492903/original/file-20221102-28436-59h8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=772&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492903/original/file-20221102-28436-59h8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=970&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492903/original/file-20221102-28436-59h8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=970&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492903/original/file-20221102-28436-59h8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=970&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lachlan Murdoch’s parents, Rupert and Anna, in 1997.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alan Berliner/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Manning’s biography shows it is not well known that Lachlan and Anna, whose marriage to Rupert lasted much longer than his other three wives, staved off an attempt by Rupert and Elisabeth to sack James after the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. The unfolding scandal overlapped with the period between 2005 and 2014 when Lachlan had left the family company, because his father had not backed him when he was being monstered by executives in the US arm of the business.</p>
<p>Manning also recounts scenes from this period seemingly drafted for Succession. The then head of News Limited in Australia, John Hartigan, was forced to mediate between father and son over the amount of access Lachlan could have to the company’s Sydney headquarters. “Don’t let him into the fucking building,” Rupert is reported as saying. “When you’re out, you’re out.” </p>
<p>Later, the Murdoch siblings began attending family counselling, where they discussed working together to “hold Rupert to account to be a mentor to James and not undermine him, as he had done with Lachlan so many years before”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fox-news-donald-trumps-cheerleaders-and-the-journalists-who-challenged-his-narrative-149575">Fox News, Donald Trump's cheerleaders and the journalists who challenged his narrative</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Failures and successes</h2>
<p>Even Rupert Murdoch’s foes concede he has been a highly successful media businessman; what about Lachlan?</p>
<p>He has had some searing failures. He led News’ role in the 1990s rugby league wars. With James Packer, he made a multi-million dollar losing investment in the internet service provider OneTel. Worst of all, he lost his $150 million investment in Channel Ten, which for a time he headed. </p>
<p>He has also had some notable successes. He invested around $10 million early in a standalone online classified advertising site, realestate.com.au, that is today worth billions. He bought a share of an Indian Premier League cricket team, the Rajasthan Royals, whose value increased dramatically. And he bought into Nova Entertainment, successfully re-setting the pitch of its radio stations, notably Smooth FM. </p>
<p>On the evidence presented in Manning’s biography, Lachlan is a good businessman, if not in the same league as his father, which is admittedly rarefied air. He was given a start in business few others have enjoyed. Sifting the benefits of privilege from natural ability and hard work is not straightforward, but Manning lays out a telling statistic. In 2022, Lachlan’s wealth was estimated at $3.95 billion in the Australian Financial Review’s annual rich list. The same list gave the wealth of his older sister Prudence at $2.58 billion. She “had not worked a day for their father’s business and had mostly escaped the Murdoch spotlight”.</p>
<p>Prudence may well be a savvy investor, and her second husband worked for many years in News Corp. She may also have an eye to what happens to News and Fox in the future. The latest speculation among Murdoch watchers, which Manning discusses, is the possibility that after Rupert Murdoch’s passing, three of the four siblings who retain shares in the family company, Prudence, Elisabeth and James, will combine to oust Lachlan. According to one Wall Street analyst, who has followed News for decades and is privy to the breakdown in the relationship between the siblings, it is “fair to assume Lachlan gets fired the day Rupert dies”.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492891/original/file-20221101-23-53u5du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492891/original/file-20221101-23-53u5du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492891/original/file-20221101-23-53u5du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492891/original/file-20221101-23-53u5du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492891/original/file-20221101-23-53u5du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492891/original/file-20221101-23-53u5du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492891/original/file-20221101-23-53u5du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492891/original/file-20221101-23-53u5du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lachlan, Rupert and James Murdoch at the Television Academy Hall of Fame, Beverly Hills, California, March 2014.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Steinberg/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/courting-the-chameleon-how-the-us-election-reveals-rupert-murdochs-political-colours-149910">Courting the chameleon: how the US election reveals Rupert Murdoch's political colours</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Right and wrong</h2>
<p>It is hard to know whether this is real or just speculation. It is also not clear how much of the breakdown in family relationships is sibling rivalry and how much is fuelled by ideological differences. James Murdoch has severed ties with News and Fox. He is on the record criticising the company’s reporting on climate change and its coverage of former president Trump’s efforts to reject the electorate’s decision in the 2020 election.</p>
<p>The core question The Successor raises in this reader’s mind, though, is how the portrait of Lachlan as a decent, socially progressive family guy in the first half of the book squares with the picture in the second half of a hard-nosed businessman who endorses the extreme, inflammatory opinions broadcast nightly on Fox News. Does he do this because it attracts viewers or because he actually believes Tucker Carlson’s ravings about the racist “great replacement” theory? </p>
<p>Where does Lachlan stand on these issues? Like his father, he has an abiding love of newspapers, but appears most engaged with them as a business, where Rupert has always had an almost visceral sense of news, both for itself and for what it can do for him and his companies. Manning reports Lachlan’s speeches espousing the virtues of press freedom and his interviews defending Fox, but the speeches are boilerplate and the comments unconvincing. Asked in one interview about Fox’s role in polarising America, Lachlan pointed to criticism of Fox from the far right, saying: “If you’ve got the left and the right criticising you, you’re doing something right.”</p>
<p>Or something profoundly wrong. This is the evidence of several media analyses reported in The Successor. Manning acknowledges that at a key point in the vote-counting for the 2020 presidential election, Fox News correctly called the result. But in the following two weeks the network cast doubt on the result at least 774 times, according to the watchdog group Media Matters. </p>
<p>Media Matters is a left-leaning organisation, so its count might be dismissed as partisan, but an investigation earlier this year by the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/us/tucker-carlson-gop-republican-party.html">New York Times</a> of 1100 episodes of Tucker Carlson Tonight found that he had amplified the great replacement theory 400 times. The number of guests who disagreed with Carlson was found to be decreasing, while the length of his monologues was increasing to double, even triple their earlier length. </p>
<p>When the US congressional hearings into the January 6 riot at the Capitol were held earlier this year, Lachlan, according to Manning, decided to air them not on Fox News, but on the little watched Fox Business channel. This was in stark contrast not only to the prominence other television networks gave to the historic hearings, but to the vast amount of airtime previously given on Fox News to the </p>
<blockquote>
<p>wild and false claims of a rigged election by Rudy Guiliani and Sidney Powell […] once again calling into question whether the channel was really in the news business at all. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Lachlan has argued that, however florid the opinions aired on Fox, the network’s news coverage is professional and balanced. Its coverage of the congressional hearings belied this claim. It was aired late at night, from 11pm. Apart from muted acknowledgement of the force of some of the testimony, Manning writes, “the rest was about sowing doubt and trying to move on”. </p>
<p>By this point, most have realised that Lachlan is further to the right than his father, whose primary outlets in America, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, have denounced as shameful former president Trump’s role in the Capitol riot. The effect, then, of the second half of The Successor is to undermine the portrait of Lachlan in first half, rendering it almost meaningless. The two can’t be squared. </p>
<p>Ultimately, Lachlan has to take responsibility for what Fox News does and the impact of its broadcasts. If he won’t, there are two multi-billion dollar lawsuits underway to focus his attention. The voting-machine companies, Smartmatic and Dominion, are alleging Fox News knowingly and maliciously spread a false narrative accusing them of election fraud.</p>
<p>Lachlan is still young by the family’s standards. His grandmother, Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, died aged 103, which Rupert described, perhaps apocryphally, as an early death. As the first biography of the current head of a powerful media empire, The Successor is well worth reading. It probably won’t be the last biography; nor should it be, as there is more to know about Lachlan Murdoch, the enterprise he heads, and the siblings who appear to covet it. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cruelty-pettiness-and-real-estate-in-confidence-man-maggie-haberman-wields-eye-popping-anecdotes-to-plumb-the-trump-phenomenon-191684">Cruelty, pettiness and real estate: in Confidence Man, Maggie Haberman wields eye popping anecdotes to plumb the Trump phenomenon</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192403/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Ricketson is the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance's representative on the Australian Press Council. </span></em></p>He is the heir-apparent of a global media empire, but how much to we really know about Lachlan Murdoch?Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1922822022-10-31T12:34:21Z2022-10-31T12:34:21ZRepublicans and Democrats see news bias only in stories that clearly favor the other party<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492353/original/file-20221028-68119-lwyx09.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C26%2C5899%2C3903&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If you detect news media bias, that perception may be a result of your own bias.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/sen-joe-manchin-speaks-to-reporters-outside-of-his-office-news-photo/1412537754?phrase=news%20reporters&adppopup=true">Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Charges of media bias – that “the media” are trying to brainwash Americans by feeding the public only one side of every issue – have become as common as campaign ads in the run-up to the midterm elections.</p>
<p>As a political scientist who has <a href="https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/5621">examined media coverage of the Trump presidency and campaigns</a>, I can say that this is what social science research tells us about media bias.</p>
<p>First, media bias is in the eye of the beholder. </p>
<p>Communications scholars have found that if you ask people in any community, using scientific polling methods, whether their local media are biased, you’ll find that about half say yes. But of that half, typically a little more than a quarter say that their local media are biased against Republicans, and a little less than a quarter <a href="https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/jops/vol35/iss1/2/">say the same local media are biased against Democrats</a>. </p>
<p>Research shows that Republicans and Democrats spot bias only in articles that clearly favor the other party. If an article tilts in favor of their own party, they tend to see it as unbiased.</p>
<p>Many people, then, define “bias” as “anything that doesn’t agree with me.” It’s not hard to see why.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gmvpBZnve70?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">‘Liberal bias’ in the media is a constant topic on Fox News.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Media’ is a plural word</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Abramowitz-Polarized-Public-The/PGM59757.html">American party politics has become increasingly polarized</a> in recent decades. Republicans have become more consistently conservative, and Democrats have become more consistently liberal to moderate. </p>
<p>As the lines have been drawn more clearly, many people have developed <a href="https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/power-negative-partisanship">hostile feelings toward the opposition party</a>. </p>
<p>In a 2016 <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/22/key-facts-partisanship/">Pew Research Center poll</a>, 45% of Republicans said the Democratic Party’s policies are “so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being,” and 41% of Democrats said the same about Republicans. A <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/as-partisan-hostility-grows-signs-of-frustration-with-the-two-party-system/">poll conducted in midyear 2022 by Pew showed</a> that “72% of Republicans regard Democrats as more immoral, and 63% of Democrats say the same about Republicans.”</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, media outlets have arisen <a href="https://www.salon.com/2013/10/19/the_birth_of_fox_news/">to appeal primarily to people who share a conservative view</a>, or people who <a href="https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444">share a liberal view</a>.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean that “the media” are biased. There are hundreds of thousands of media outlets in the U.S. – newspapers, radio, network TV, cable TV, blogs, websites and social media. These news outlets don’t all take the same perspective on any given issue. </p>
<p>If you want a very conservative news site, it is not hard to find one, and the same with a very liberal news site.</p>
<h2>First Amendment rules</h2>
<p>“The media,” then, <a href="https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2016/is-media-bias-really-rampant-ask-the-man-who-studies-it-for-a-living/">present a variety of different perspectives</a>. That’s the way a free press works. </p>
<p>The Constitution’s First Amendment says Congress shall make no law limiting the freedom of the press. It doesn’t say that Congress shall require all media sources to be “unbiased.” Rather, it implies that as long as Congress does not systematically suppress any particular point of view, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/06/what-first-amendment-protects-and-what-doesnt/469920002/">then the free press can do its job</a> as one of the primary checks on a powerful government.</p>
<p>When the Constitution was written and for most of U.S. history, the major news sources – newspapers, for most of that time – <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691123677/all-the-news-thats-fit-to-sell">were explicitly biased</a>. Most were sponsored by a political party or a partisan individual. </p>
<p>The notion of objective journalism – that media must report both sides of every issue in every story – barely existed until the late 1800s. It reached full flower only in the few decades when broadcast television, limited to three major networks, was <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/postbroadcast-democracy/A0D17A3CD156A0D1BB4318EE5DBCC60B">the primary source of political information</a>.</p>
<p>Since that time, the media universe has expanded to include huge numbers of internet news sites, cable channels and social media posts. So if you feel that the media sources you’re reading or watching are biased, you can read a wider variety of media sources.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362812/original/file-20201011-15-1gujjcx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Front page of the April 15, 1789 edition of the Gazette of the United States" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362812/original/file-20201011-15-1gujjcx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362812/original/file-20201011-15-1gujjcx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362812/original/file-20201011-15-1gujjcx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362812/original/file-20201011-15-1gujjcx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362812/original/file-20201011-15-1gujjcx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1185&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362812/original/file-20201011-15-1gujjcx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1185&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362812/original/file-20201011-15-1gujjcx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1185&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Thomas Jefferson described this partisan newspaper, The Gazette of the United States, as ‘a paper of pure Toryism … disseminating the doctrines of monarchy, aristocracy, and the exclusion of the people.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030483/1789-04-15/ed-1/seq-1/">Library of Congress, Chronicling America collection</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>If it bleeds, it leads</h2>
<p>There is one form of actual media bias. Almost all media outlets need audiences in order to exist. Some can’t survive financially without an audience; others want the prestige that comes from attracting a big audience. </p>
<p>Thus, the media define as “news” the kinds of stories that will attract an audience: those that feature drama, conflict, engaging pictures and immediacy. That’s what <a href="https://nupress.northwestern.edu/content/deciding-whats-news">most people find interesting</a>. They don’t want to read a story headlined “Dog bites man.” They want “Man bites dog.”</p>
<p>The problem is that a focus on such stories crowds out what we need to know to protect our democracy, such as: How do the workings of American institutions benefit some groups and disadvantage others? In what ways do our major systems – education, health care, national defense and others – function effectively or less effectively? </p>
<p>These analyses are vital to citizens – if we fail to protect our democracy, our lives will be changed forever – but they aren’t always fun to read. So they get covered much less than celebrity scandals or murder cases – which, while compelling, don’t really affect the ability to sustain a democratic system.</p>
<p>Writer Dave Barry demonstrated this media bias in favor of dramatic stories <a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/dave-barry/article205604594.html">in a 1998 column</a>. </p>
<p>He wrote, “Let’s consider two headlines. FIRST HEADLINE: ‘Federal Reserve Board Ponders Reversal of Postponement of Deferral of Policy Reconsideration.’ SECOND HEADLINE: ‘Federal Reserve Board Caught in Motel with Underage Sheep.’ Be honest, now. Which of these two stories would you read?”</p>
<p>By focusing on the daily equivalent of the underage sheep, media can direct our attention away from the important systems that affect our lives. That isn’t the media’s fault; we are the audience whose attention media outlets want to attract. </p>
<p>But as long as we think of governance in terms of its entertainment value and media bias in terms of Republicans and Democrats, we’ll continue to be less informed than we need to be. That’s the real media bias.</p>
<p><em>This story is an updated version of <a href="https://theconversation.com/political-bias-in-media-doesnt-threaten-democracy-other-less-visible-biases-do-144844">an article that was originally published</a> on Oct. 15, 2020.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192282/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marjorie Hershey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Many people define ‘bias’ as ‘anything that doesn’t agree with me.’ But are the news media really biased?Marjorie Hershey, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1918182022-10-12T15:23:25Z2022-10-12T15:23:25ZRainbow fentanyl – the newest Halloween scare<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/488560/original/file-20221006-22-2zni7j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=227%2C168%2C4662%2C3254&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trends in recreational or illicit drug use often make the jump to Halloween warnings.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/hand-dropping-pills-on-blue-background-royalty-free-image/1042683302?phrase=pills different colors&adppopup=true">Malte Mueller/fstop via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every year around the middle of October, reporters start contacting me wanting to talk about rumors of contaminated Halloween treats. </p>
<p>That’s because I track media coverage of reported incidents of trick-or-treaters receiving razor blades in apples or pins and poison in candy bars. <a href="https://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/726/DSpace.revised%20thru%2021.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y">My data goes back to 1958</a>, and my principal finding is simple: I can’t find any evidence that any child has ever been killed or seriously injured by a contaminated treat picked up in the course of trick-or-treating. </p>
<p>This often surprises people who assume that Halloween sadism is both very real and very common.</p>
<p>Stories about contaminated treats <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-halloween-became-americas-most-dangerous-holiday-123132">are best understood as contemporary legends</a>. They’re tales we’ve all heard, that we’ve been assured are true. They warn that we live in a dangerous world filled with villainous strangers who could harm us if we aren’t careful.</p>
<p>This year, reporters began reaching out earlier than usual, in late September, and they wanted to talk about a new alleged threat: “<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/young-people-are-targeted-brightly-colored-rainbow-fentanyl-government-rcna49503">rainbow fentanyl</a>.”</p>
<h2>Kids are next</h2>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-fentanyl-and-why-is-it-behind-the-deadly-surge-in-us-drug-overdoses-a-medical-toxicologist-explains-182629">Fentanyl</a> is a very powerful synthetic opioid that has caused thousands of overdoses and deaths over the past two decades. In August 2022, <a href="https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2022/08/30/dea-warns-brightly-colored-fentanyl-used-target-young-americans">drug enforcement authorities</a> noted that pills containing fentanyl were being manufactured in various colors. DEA Administrator Anne Milgram <a href="https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2022/08/30/dea-warns-brightly-colored-fentanyl-used-target-young-americans">said</a>, “Rainbow fentanyl – fentanyl pills and powder that come in a variety of bright colors, shapes and sizes – is a deliberate effort by drug traffickers to drive addiction amongst kids and young adults.”</p>
<p>Many news outlets covered <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/young-people-are-targeted-brightly-colored-rainbow-fentanyl-government-rcna49503">this story</a>, including the notion that the colors might be some sort of marketing ploy to attract younger drug users. But then some people started connecting rainbow fentanyl to Halloween.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/09/28/rainbow-fentanyl-scare-halloween/">Interviewed on Fox News</a> on Sept. 20, 2022, Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel declared, “Every mom in the country is worried, what if this gets into my kid’s Halloween basket?” <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-goes-into-full-panic-on-rainbow-fentanyl-advises-against-trick-or-treating-this-halloween">Other Fox commentators</a> suggested that parents might want to protect their children by not letting them go trick-or-treating this year. And, to prove the bipartisan appeal of protecting children, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/sen-chuck-schumer-warns-drug-dealers-pushing-rainbow-fentanyl-to-children/">repeated the warnings</a>.</p>
<h2>September crime lays the groundwork</h2>
<p>It’s worth considering what’s familiar and what’s new about these warnings. </p>
<p>One fairly standard element is commentators’ readiness to link September crime news to the possibility that it might presage what could happen on Halloween. </p>
<p>In 1982 there was a spate of <a href="https://history.com/news/extra-strength-tylenol-poisonings-1982">Tylenol poisonings</a> – seven people died after purchasing and consuming tampered packages of pills. Many commentators then warned that parents needed to be extra vigilant when examining Halloween treats. Those deaths also led to a dramatic increase in protective packaging for all sorts of products to discourage tampering. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Man wearing glasses and suit speaks into microphone while holding a white bottle of pills." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/489020/original/file-20221010-23-jwtda4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/489020/original/file-20221010-23-jwtda4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489020/original/file-20221010-23-jwtda4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489020/original/file-20221010-23-jwtda4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489020/original/file-20221010-23-jwtda4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489020/original/file-20221010-23-jwtda4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489020/original/file-20221010-23-jwtda4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">David Clare, president of Johnson & Johnson, testifies before a Senate subcommittee after a spate of Tylenol poisonings.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/david-clare-president-of-johnson-and-johnson-the-makers-of-news-photo/515207528?phrase=tylenol%20poisoning&adppopup=true">Bettmann/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, the 9/11 terrorist attacks led to rumors about Halloween 2001 threats – that there were plans to <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mall-o-ween/">attack a mall</a> where some parents let their children go trick-or-treating, or that terrorists had purchased <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/candy-man/">massive amounts of candy</a>, presumably so they could poison the treats before distributing them.</p>
<p>Trends in recreational or illicit drug use often make the jump to Halloween warnings. In 2014, the year that Colorado first allowed state-licensed retail sales of recreational marijuana, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wQdLzyN8AU">the Denver Police posted online warnings</a> that parents ought to keep an eye out for THC-laced edible candies in Halloween treats. Yet after Halloween had passed, <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/27/16512108/marijuana-legalization-halloween-candy-edibles">a department spokesperson admitted</a>, “We are not aware of any cases of children ingesting marijuana candy during Halloween season.” </p>
<p>Similarly, in 2019, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/28/health/cdc-vaping-death-data-mmwr">September reports</a> of deaths caused by vaping black-market THC-infused cartridges were coupled with news that Pennsylvania authorities had confiscated commercial THC candies – supposedly smuggled from a state where they could be purchased legally – to generate another round of Halloween warnings.</p>
<h2>The irrationality of it all</h2>
<p>One obvious hole in these concerns is that drugs tend to cost more than candy – <a href="https://blog.heyemjay.com/how-much-are-edibles/">marijuana edibles</a>, for example, run somewhere in the neighborhood of a dollar or two per dose or more. </p>
<p>Fentanyl is considerably more <a href="https://bedrockrecoverycenter.com/street-price-of-drugs/prescription/fentanyl/">expensive</a>. It is not unreasonable to wonder just what a fentanyl dealer’s overarching goal might be if in passing the drug off as candy. The suggestion that a school-age kid would go from accidental user of fentanyl to a paying addict is far-fetched.</p>
<p>Of course, the villains in contemporary legends aren’t expected to behave rationally. Ask why gang members would attempt to kill motorists who <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lights-out/">blink their headlights at them</a> – an urban legend from the 1980s – and the response is likely to be, “That’s just the sort of thing those sadistic people do.” It might not make any sense for someone to give a brightly colored opioid pill or THC-infused candy to a small child, but it isn’t impossible, is it? Such reasoning is thought to justify ringing the alarm bells.</p>
<p>Often there is a kernel of truth to these fears. Certainly fentanyl is a dangerous drug. But American history <a href="https://www.routledge.com/American-Fear-The-Causes-and-Consequences-of-High-Anxiety/Stearns/p/book/9780415955423">can be read as a long line of fears</a> about witches, immigrants, drugs, conspirators and so on. These fears emerge as reflections of current social changes. Yes, things are always changing, and this can always frighten some people. But it is also true that, in retrospect, these fears are usually exaggerated.</p>
<p>What seems new about describing rainbow fentanyl as a Halloween danger is the willingness of important political figures and news media outlets to spread the warnings. Most past claims about Halloween sadism lack such prominent spokespeople. </p>
<p>But in a time when many news outlets seem intent on maintaining their audiences by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211024776">frightening them</a>, and increased <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-072012-113747">political polarization</a> seems to stall efforts to devise workable social policies, calls for protecting our children from the threats of boogeyman drug dealers return us to the spirit of Halloween: offering up fresh ways to keep people scared.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191818/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joel Best does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Like clockwork, September crime news is often cast as an ominous sign of what could happen on Halloween.Joel Best, Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of DelawareLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1875792022-08-10T12:18:45Z2022-08-10T12:18:45ZDon’t be too quick to blame social media for America’s polarization – cable news has a bigger effect, study finds<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478366/original/file-20220809-16320-by0k6f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C5%2C4000%2C2644&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Joe Biden and Donald Trump supporters, like these two, are more likely to be polarized by TV news than online echo chambers.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BidenInaugurationTwoWorlds/7e1e25cd3f574ef98153395f38d5672b/photo">AP Photo/Allen G. Breed</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The past two election cycles have seen an <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv8xnhtd">explosion of attention given</a> to “echo chambers,” or communities where a narrow set of views makes people less likely to challenge their own opinions. Much of this concern has focused on the rise of social media, which has <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/671987">radically transformed the information ecosystem</a>.</p>
<p>However, when scientists investigated social media echo chambers, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656">they found surprisingly little evidence</a> of them on a large scale – or at least none on a scale large enough to warrant the growing concerns. And yet, selective exposure to news <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x">does increase polarization</a>. This suggested that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244019832705">these studies</a> missed part of the picture of Americans’ news consumption patterns. Crucially, they did not factor in a major component of the average American’s experience of news: television.</p>
<p>To fill in this gap, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Zb68N-kAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate">I</a> and a group of researchers from <a href="https://datascience.stanford.edu/people/daniel-muise">Stanford University</a>, the <a href="https://pikprofessors.upenn.edu/meet-the-professors/duncan-watts">University of Pennsylvania</a> and <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/people/davidmr/">Microsoft Research</a> tracked the TV news consumption habits of tens of thousands of American adults each month from 2016 through 2019. We discovered <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn0083">four aspects of news consumption</a> that, when taken together, paint an unsettling picture of the TV news ecosystem.</p>
<h2>TV trumps online</h2>
<p>We first measured just how politically siloed American news consumers really are across TV and the web. Averaging over the four years of our observations, we found that roughly 17% of Americans are politically polarized – 8.7% to the left and 8.4% to the right – based on their TV news consumption. That’s three to four times higher than the average percentage of Americans polarized by online news.</p>
<p>Moreover, the percentage of Americans polarized via TV ranged as high as 23% at its peak in November 2016, the month in which Donald Trump was elected president. A second spike occurred in the months leading into December 2018, following the “blue wave” midterm elections in which a <a href="https://politicalsciencenow.com/the-blue-wave-assessing-political-advertising-trends-and-democratic-advantages-in-2018/">record number of Democratic campaign ads</a> were aired on TV. The timing of these two spikes suggests a clear connection between content choices and events in the political arena.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yN_Mp9ZsVXA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The 2018 midterm elections saw campaign ads reach new levels of partisanship.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Staying in TV echo chambers</h2>
<p>Besides being more politically siloed on average, our research found that TV news consumers are much more likely than web consumers to maintain the same partisan news diets over time: after six months, left-leaning TV audiences are 10 times more likely to remain segregated than left-leaning online audiences, and right-leaning audiences are 4.5 times more likely than their online counterparts.</p>
<p>While these figures may seem intimidating, it is important to keep in mind that even among TV viewers, about 70% of right-leaning viewers and about 80% of left-leaning viewers do switch their news diets within six months. To the extent that long-lasting echo chambers do exist, then, they include only about 4% of the population.</p>
<h2>Narrow TV diets</h2>
<p>Partisan segregation among TV audiences goes even further than left- and right-leaning sources, we found. We identified seven broad buckets of TV news sources, then used these archetypes to determine what a typical unvaried TV news diet really looks like.</p>
<p>We found that, compared to online audiences, partisan TV news consumers tend not to stray too far from their narrow sets of preferred news sources. For example, most Americans who consume mostly MSNBC rarely consume news from any other source besides CNN. Similarly, most Americans who consume mostly Fox News Channel do not venture beyond that network at all. This finding contrasts with data from online news consumers, who still receive sizable amounts of news from outside their main archetype.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478369/original/file-20220809-14-pzgjbc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="One man interviews another on the set of the television program" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478369/original/file-20220809-14-pzgjbc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478369/original/file-20220809-14-pzgjbc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478369/original/file-20220809-14-pzgjbc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478369/original/file-20220809-14-pzgjbc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478369/original/file-20220809-14-pzgjbc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478369/original/file-20220809-14-pzgjbc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478369/original/file-20220809-14-pzgjbc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People who get their news from MSNBC rarely stray beyond MSNBC and CNN for their news consumption.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RichardLuiOnSetMSNBC.jpg">Mikeblog/Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Distilling partisanship</h2>
<p>Finally, we found an imbalance between partisan TV news channels and the broader TV news environment. Our observations revealed that Americans are turning away from national TV news generally in substantial numbers – and crucially, this exodus is more from centrist news buckets than from left- or right-leaning ones. Within the remaining TV news audience, we found movement from broadcast news to cable news, trending toward MSNBC and Fox News.</p>
<p>Together, these trends reveal a counterintuitive finding: Although the overall TV news audience is shrinking, the partisan TV news audience is growing. This means that the audience as a whole is in the process of being “distilled” – remaining TV viewers are growing increasingly partisan, and the partisan proportion of TV news consumers is on the rise.</p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>Exposure to opposing views is <a href="https://www.princeton.edu/news/2021/12/09/political-polarization-and-its-echo-chambers-surprising-new-cross-disciplinary">critical for functional democratic processes</a>. It allows for self-reflection and <a href="https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/10127">tempers hostility toward political outgroups</a>, whereas only interacting with similar views in political echo chambers makes people more entrenched in their own opinions. If echo chambers truly are as widespread as <a href="https://rcommunicationr.org/index.php/rcr/article/view/94">recent attention</a> has made them out to be, it can have major consequences for the health of democracy.</p>
<p>Our findings suggest that television – not the web – is the top driver of partisan audience segregation among Americans. It is important to note that the vast majority of Americans still consume relatively balanced news diets. </p>
<p>However, given that the partisan TV news audience alone <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay3539">consumes more minutes of news than the entire online news audience</a>, it may be worth devoting more attention to this huge and increasingly politicized part of the information ecosystem.</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/social-media-and-society-125586" target="_blank"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479539/original/file-20220817-20-g5jxhm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=144&fit=crop&dpr=1" width="100%"></a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/187579/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Homa Hosseinmardi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Studies of online echo chambers don’t paint the full picture of Americans’ political segregation. New research shows that the problem is more Fox News Channel and MSNBC than Facebook and Twitter.Homa Hosseinmardi, Associate Research Scientist in Computational Social Science, University of PennsylvaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1836502022-05-29T19:54:39Z2022-05-29T19:54:39ZWill News Corp change its approach after Labor’s election win? Not if the US example is anything to go by<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465633/original/file-20220527-22-acn1fm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=59%2C0%2C3892%2C1994&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Key moments on Sky News in the week following the election result.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sky News</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1953, the Communist East German regime quashed a widespread uprising and afterwards admonished the protesters, saying the government had lost confidence in the people. In a famous satirical poem, left-wing author Bertolt Brecht said that, if so, perhaps the government could dissolve the people and elect a new lot.</p>
<p>One guesses that after the recent Australian election, News Corp would also like to elect a new public, as the result highlighted its own irrelevance and how out of touch it is with the Australian mainstream. Rather than directly attacking the public, though, it aimed its vitriol at the Greens and the teal independents, both of whom had wildly successful elections, and against Labor, which regained government from opposition.</p>
<p>So far, the media company’s epic fail seems not to have occasioned any soul- searching. Indeed some in its stable – in a triumph of ideological fantasy over numeracy – have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/23/in-shock-and-anger-over-liberal-defeat-sky-news-commentators-urge-party-to-shift-right">asserted</a> the result was due to the Liberals moving too far “left”.</p>
<p>Questions remain about the future though: will the election lead News Corp to change, either out of professional shame or in the interests of expanding its market share beyond the right-wing, populist ghetto it inhabits? And how will it treat the incoming government?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-reality-distorting-machinery-of-the-federal-election-campaign-delivered-sub-par-journalism-183629">How the 'reality-distorting machinery' of the federal election campaign delivered sub-par journalism</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some insight might be gained from how the jewel in Murdoch’s crown, his greatest commercial and political success of the past three decades, Fox News, covered the administrations of US presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, both of whose elections it had vehemently opposed.</p>
<p>The opposition to Obama from Fox’s commentators was immediate and unrelenting. Even before he took office, after an economic setback during the global recession which had been going on for months, Fox News star Sean Hannity said Obama was to blame, because the prospect of his taking over had made wealthy people get out of the market. </p>
<p>On the day of the president’s inauguration, Rush Limbaugh <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/02/barack-obama-right-wing-pundits">declared</a>: “I hope he fails”. On day three, Laura Ingraham declared “our country is less safe today”. The next day, their new star Glenn Beck said Obama had ended the war on terror, and a week later asserted the country was on a march towards socialism.</p>
<p>Over the next few years, Fox gave oxygen to the “<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37391652">birther</a>” issue. This was the claim that Obama was not born in America and so was not eligible to be president – that his birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii was fake. In two months in early 2011, Fox devoted 52 items to “birther” stories, 44 of which featured the claim without any other view being put.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465421/original/file-20220526-18-zgajfc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465421/original/file-20220526-18-zgajfc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465421/original/file-20220526-18-zgajfc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465421/original/file-20220526-18-zgajfc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465421/original/file-20220526-18-zgajfc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465421/original/file-20220526-18-zgajfc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465421/original/file-20220526-18-zgajfc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fox News’ Sean Hannity has been a loud critic of Barack Obama and equally loud supporter of Donald Trump.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Julie Jacobson/AP/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Fox also took decisive steps transgressing what others would consider professional boundaries in becoming directly involved in the formation of the Tea Party, a right-wing movement that proclaimed it wanted to take their country back, who demanded ever more right-wing candidates in the Republican Party. Not only did Fox give abundant publicity to their rallies, its then most prominent star, Glenn Beck spoke at numerous rallies. </p>
<p>This points to an interesting paradox: Fox News probably persuades few Democrats to change sides. Rather, the biggest losers from Fox’s impact have been moderate Republicans, as Fox has helped move the party ever more to the right. </p>
<p>Could it be that News Corp is having, or will have, a similar impact on the conservative side of Australian politics, making it harder for the Liberals to develop sane policies on issues such as global warming?</p>
<p>After Biden’s election, several Fox presenters supported Trump’s claims that the election was stolen, that Trump had really won. This strikes at one of the fundamental pillars of democracy: that the vote count can be trusted.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XtVOnLi5EoY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>More recently, Fox has promoted an equally dangerous idea, especially promoted by its highest-paid performer, Tucker Carlson. This is known as the Great Replacement Theory. A long-term demographic trend in the US is that the proportion of whites is gradually declining as those of Blacks, Latinos and other ethnic groups grow more quickly. </p>
<p>Carlson and others turn this into a conspiracy theory: that Democratic elites are seeking to force demographic change through immigration, to replace the current electorate with new more “obedient” people from the Third World. </p>
<p>Carlson has made more than <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/05/18/tucker-carlson-replacement-theory-zw-orig.cnn-business">400 references</a> to this absurd conspiracy. In the past year these dangerous views have moved from the fringes, with substantial proportions of Republicans agreeing with some aspects of the theory.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/as-news-corp-goes-rogue-on-election-coverage-what-price-will-australian-democracy-pay-181599">As News Corp goes 'rogue' on election coverage, what price will Australian democracy pay?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is impossible to imagine a more moderate or centrist Fox News. Its business model is built on delivering a predictable product to its niche audience of alienated, older whites, mobilising their resentments over status anxiety, cutting through the complexities of the modern world with simple affirmations of their prejudices.</p>
<p>Its most successful shows rarely attract more than 2-3% of the viewing public, itself a shrinking percentage of the total population. But its mix of strong opinions and minimal expenditure on reporting has been wildly profitable.</p>
<p>There was a time when Rupert Murdoch had a shrewd populist touch and, for reasons of both patronage and reputation, aimed to be on the winning side in elections. Those days are gone. The past few decades have seen the “Foxification” of News Corp. </p>
<p>This does not mean we will see claims of electoral fraud or replacement theories in Australia. But it does mean that the company’s formula for commercial viability is giving a predictable product to a niche audience.</p>
<p>In turn, this means that Murdoch’s outlets are now rusted-on supporters of right-wing parties and views, indifferent to any electoral counter-currents. Many of his most prominent commentators have the consistency of a stopped clock.</p>
<p>Decades of conformity in a strongly hierarchical empire have produced a hardening of the editorial arteries, a mediocre culture that seems incapable of delivering anything other than more of the same.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183650/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rodney Tiffen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>News Corp has its path on relentless right-wing championing, and it’s unlikely to change its ways now.Rodney Tiffen, Emeritus Professor, Department of Government and International Relations, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1830772022-05-16T18:30:04Z2022-05-16T18:30:04ZHow media reports of ‘clashes’ mislead Americans about Israeli-Palestinian violence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463332/original/file-20220516-15-bbvezx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C22%2C3715%2C2454&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When does a 'clash' become an 'assault'?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/PicturesoftheWeek-Global-PhotoGallery/bc862b042976498580767f551fd3e35f/photo?Query=Shireen%20Abu%20Akleh%20funeral%20police&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=20&currentItemNo=8">AP Photo/Maya Levin</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/13/why-is-israel-afraid-of-the-palestinian-flag">Israeli police attacked</a> mourners carrying the coffin of slain Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh on May 13, 2022, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/shireen-abu-akleh-journalist-funeral-west-bank-bb71e2ec64dd034066bc6df4a9aa2fb3">beating pallbearers with batons and kicking them</a> when they fell to the ground.</p>
<p>Yet those who skimmed the headlines of initial reports from several U.S. media outlets may have been left with a different impression of what happened. </p>
<p>“Israeli Police Clash with Mourners at Funeral Procession,” read the <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/israeli-police-clash-with-mourners-a-funeral-procession-for-journalist-139944517790">headline of MSNBC’s online report</a>. The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/israeli-forces-palestinians-clash-in-west-bank-before-funeral-of-journalist-11652471399">had a similar</a> headline on its story: “Israeli Forces, Palestinians Clash in West Bank before Funeral of Journalist.”</p>
<p>Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/israeli-police-clash-al-jazeera-journalist-shireen-abu-akleh-mourners">began the text of its article</a> with “Clashes erupted Friday in Jerusalem as mourners attended the burial of veteran American Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh who was shot dead Friday when covering a raid in the West Bank city of Jenin.”</p>
<p>There is no mention in the headlines of these articles about who instigated the violence, nor any hint of the power imbalance between a heavily armed Israeli police force and what appeared to be unarmed Palestinian civilians.</p>
<p>Such language and omissions are common in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-media-reporting-on-israel-palestine-there-is-nowhere-to-hide-160992">reporting of violence conducted by Israel’s police or military</a>. Similar headlines followed an incident in April in which <a href="https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-jerusalem-aqsa-mosque-storm-attack-worshipper">Israeli police attacked worshippers</a> at Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Then, too, police attacks on worshippers – in which as many as 152 Palestinians were injured by rubber bullets and batons – were <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/04/17/1093233899/jerusalem-violence-al-aqsa-mosque">widely</a> <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-police-palestinians-clash-jerusalem-holy-site-2022-04-15/">described</a> as “clashes.”</p>
<p>And headlines matter – many Americans <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/03/19/americans-read-headlines-and-not-much-else/">do not read past them</a> when consuming news or <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/06/16/six-in-10-of-you-will-share-this-link-without-reading-it-according-to-a-new-and-depressing-study/">sharing articles online</a>.</p>
<h2>Neutral terms aren’t always neutral</h2>
<p>The use of a word like “clashes” might seem to make sense in a topic as contentious as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which violent acts are perpetrated by both sides.</p>
<p>But as a <a href="https://menas.arizona.edu/people/maha-nassar">scholar of Palestinian history</a> and an <a href="https://www.972mag.com/us-media-palestinians/">analyst of U.S. media coverage of this topic</a>, I believe using neutral terms such as “clashes” to describe Israeli police and military attacks on Palestinian civilians is misleading. It overlooks instances in which Israeli forces instigate violence against Palestinians who pose no threat to them. It also often gives more weight to official Israeli narratives than to Palestinian ones.</p>
<p>U.S. media have <a href="http://cup.columbia.edu/book/pens-and-swords/9780231133487">long been accused</a> of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1525/jps.2001.30.2.61">misleading their audience</a> when it comes to violence committed against Palestinians. A 2021 <a href="https://web.mit.edu/hjackson/www/The_NYT_Distorts_the_Palestinian_Struggle.pdf">study from MIT of 50 years of New York Times coverage</a> of the conflict found “a disproportionate use of the passive voice to refer to negative or violent action perpetrated towards Palestinians.” </p>
<p>Using the passive voice – for example, reporting that “Palestinians were killed in clashes” rather than “Israeli forces killed Palestinians” – is language that helps shield Israel from scrutiny. It also obscures the reason so many Palestinians would be angry at Israel. </p>
<p>It’s not just The New York Times. A <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/01/12/israel-palestine-conflict-news-headlines/">2019 analysis by data researchers in Canada of more than 100,000 headlines</a> from 50 years of U.S. coverage across five newspapers <a href="https://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/416LABS_50_Years_of_Occupation.pdf">concluded that</a> “the U.S. mainstream media’s coverage of the conflict favors Israel in terms of both the sheer quantity of stories covered, and by providing more opportunities to the Israelis to amplify their point of view.”</p>
<p>That 2019 study also found that words associated with violence, including “clash” and “clashes,” were more likely to be used in stories about Palestinians than Israelis.</p>
<h2>Competing narratives</h2>
<p>One problem with using “clash” is that it obscures incidents in which Israeli police and security forces attack Palestinians who pose no threat to them. </p>
<p>Amnesty International, a human rights advocacy group, <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/05/israel-opt-increase-in-unlawful-killings-and-other-crimes-highlights-urgent-need-to-end-israels-apartheid-against-palestinians/">described the recent incident at the Al-Aqsa Mosque</a> as one in which Israeli police “brutally attacked worshippers in and around the mosque and used violence that amounts to torture and other ill-treatment to break up gatherings.”</p>
<p>The word “clashes” does not convey this reality.</p>
<p>Using “clashes” also gives more credibility to the Israeli government version of the story than the Palestinian one. Israeli officials often accuse Palestinians of instigating violence, claiming that soldiers and police had to use lethal force to stave off Palestinian attacks. And that’s how these events are usually reported.</p>
<p>But Israeli human rights group B'Tselem’s database on Israeli and Palestinian fatalities <a href="https://statistics.btselem.org/en/all-fatalities/by-date-of-incident?section=participation&tab=overview">shows that</a> most of the roughly 10,000 Palestinians killed by Israel since 2000 did not “participate in hostilities” at the time they were killed.</p>
<p>We saw this attempt to shift the blame to Palestinians for Israeli violence in the killing of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. According to <a href="https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-al-jazeera-journalist-shireen-abu-akleh-shot-dead-jenin">her colleagues at the scene of her death</a>, an Israeli military sniper <a href="https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/shireen-abu-akleh-killing-al-jazeera-journalist-eyewitness-account?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1652294662">deliberately shot and killed the veteran journalist</a> with a live bullet to her right temple, even though she was wearing a “PRESS” flak jacket and helmet. One or more snipers also shot at Abu Akleh’s colleagues as they tried to rescue her, <a href="https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-al-jazeera-journalist-shireen-abu-akleh-shot-dead-jenin">according to eyewitness accounts</a>. </p>
<p>At first, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/11/israel-jazeera-journalist-jenin/">said</a> that “armed Palestinians shot in an inaccurate, indiscriminate and uncontrolled manner” at the time of her killing – implying that Palestinians could have shot Abu Akleh. Then, as evidence mounted <a href="https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20220512-btselem-israel-narrative-about-killing-shireen-abu-akleh-untrue/">disproving this account</a>, Israeli officials changed course, <a href="https://www.jta.org/2022/05/11/israel/benny-gantz-al-jazeera-journalist-may-have-been-killed-by-israeli-or-palestinian-fire">saying that</a> the source of the gunfire “cannot yet be determined.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A women walks past a mural depicting slain journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and a helmet with 'PRESS' on it." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463376/original/file-20220516-14-m92a0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463376/original/file-20220516-14-m92a0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463376/original/file-20220516-14-m92a0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463376/original/file-20220516-14-m92a0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463376/original/file-20220516-14-m92a0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463376/original/file-20220516-14-m92a0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463376/original/file-20220516-14-m92a0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A mural of slain Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/PalestiniansIsraelJournalistKilled/80b0af70f3b34da798c415d95ce8c952/photo?Query=Shireen%20Abu%20Akleh&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=140&currentItemNo=14">AP Photo/Adel Hana</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The New York Times initially <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/world/middleeast/al-jazeera-journalist-killed-west-bank.html?searchResultPosition=7">reported that</a> Abu Akleh “was shot as clashes between the Israeli military and Palestinian gunmen took place in the city.” Further down in the same story, we read that Palestinian journalist Ali Samudi, who was wounded in the same attack, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/world/middleeast/al-jazeera-journalist-killed-west-bank.html?searchResultPosition=7">said</a>, “There were no armed Palestinians or resistance or even civilians in the area.” Yet this perspective is missing from the headline and opening paragraphs of the story. </p>
<p>A few days later, an <a href="https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2022/05/14/unravelling-the-killing-of-shireen-abu-akleh/">analysis of available video footage</a> by investigative journalism outlet Bellingcat concluded that the evidence “appears to support” eyewitnesses who said no militant activity was taking place and that the gunfire came from Israeli military snipers.</p>
<p>The New York Times has not updated or corrected its original story to reflect this new evidence.</p>
<p>It provides an example of why the use of “clash” has been widely <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/28/jerusalem-al-aqsa-media-coverage-israeli-violence-palestinians/">criticized by Palestinian and Arab journalists</a>. Indeed, the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalist Association in 2021 <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56f442fc5f43a6ecc531a9f5/t/60a7f4b94dcb02030b448fc2/1621619899348/Guidelines+for+Palestine+%3A+Israel+Coverage+-+AMEJA.pdf">issued guidance for journalists</a>, urging that they “avoid the word ‘clashes’ in favor of a more precise description.” </p>
<h2>An incomplete picture</h2>
<p>There is another problem with “clashes.” Limiting media attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict only when “clashes erupt” gives Western readers and viewers an incomplete picture. It ignores what B’Tselem describes as the “<a href="https://www.btselem.org/routine_founded_on_violence">daily routine of overt or implicit state violence</a>” that Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories face.</p>
<p>Without understanding the daily violence that Palestinians experience – as documented by groups such as <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution">Human Rights Watch</a> and <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/">Amnesty International</a> – it is harder for news consumers to fully comprehend why “clashes” take place in the first place.</p>
<p>But the way people get their news is changing, and with it so are Americans’ views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is especially true among younger Americans, who are <a href="https://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2019/how-younger-generations-consume-news-differently/">less likely</a> to receive their news from mainstream outlets. </p>
<p>Recent polls show that younger Americans generally <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/24/a-new-perspective-on-americans-views-of-israelis-and-palestinians/">sympathize with Palestinians</a> more than older Americans. That shift holds among <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/israelstudies.22.3.08#metadata_info_tab_contents">younger Jewish Americans</a> and <a href="https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/evangelical-youth-losing-love-for-israel-by-35-percent-study-shows-671178">younger evangelicals</a>, two communities that have traditionally expressed strong pro-Israel sentiments.</p>
<p>U.S. journalists themselves are also working to change how outlets cover Israeli violence. Last year several of them – including reporters from The Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and ABC News – issued an <a href="https://medialetterpalestine.medium.com/an-open-letter-on-u-s-media-coverage-of-palestine-d51cad42022d">open letter</a> calling on fellow journalists “to tell the full, contextualized truth without fear or favor, to recognize that obfuscating Israel’s oppression of Palestinians fails this industry’s own objectivity standards.” So far, over 500 journalists have signed on.</p>
<p>Accurate language in the reporting of Israeli-Palestinian violence is not only a concern for journalists’ credibility – it would also provide U.S. news consumers with a deeper understanding of the conditions on the ground and the deadly consequences.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183077/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maha Nassar is a 2022 Palestinian Non-Resident Fellow at the Foundation for Middle East Peace.</span></em></p>In trying to present violent events in ‘neutral’ language, media reports may be ignoring power imbalances when it comes to Israeli police or military violence against Palestinian civilians.Maha Nassar, Associate Professor in the School of Middle Eastern and North African Studies, University of ArizonaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.