Fox aired 45-second ballot ruling segment at 11:30 p.m.
Two breaking stories roiled US politics this week and immediately drew extensive coverage across major outlets, but Fox News primetime gave them minimal attention, Guardian US columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote on September 17.
The Supreme Court surprised observers by rejecting, for now, President Donald Trump’s attempted restrictions on mail-in ballots — what Sullivan characterized as a blow to Republicans ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. Separately, investigative site ProPublica reported that a Russian oligarch helped bankroll the Bahamas wedding of Trump’s son Donald Jr., to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The story, according to ProPublica, became its most-read article of the year.
“Two breaking stories roiled US politics this week and immediately got big play on most news sites,” Sullivan wrote.
But Fox News handled both stories differently, according to coverage tracking by Media Matters and reporting by CNN’s Brian Stelter that Sullivan cited.
The wedding investigation received about one minute of coverage on Fox’s Monday evening programming, Media Matters reported. “There’s no looking away from this Trump scoop,” Stelter wrote of the investigation. At Fox, by contrast, it was “business as usual.”
The Supreme Court ruling broke during the 7 p.m. hour, but Ingraham — “a law school grad,” as Stelter noted — did not cover it during her show. Neither did Watters or Hannity, whom Stelter called Fox’s other big-name opinion hosts. Fox did not air a 45-second segment on the ruling until 11:30 p.m., Stelter reported, even as the decision was a leading story elsewhere.
In subsequent days, Fox paid more attention to both stories, but mostly to amplify Trump’s criticism of the justices who ruled against him, Sullivan wrote.
Sullivan wrote that Fox News has long billed itself as the more balanced alternative to mainstream media, positioning itself against what Trump regularly calls “fake news.” But, she wrote, “the network often looks the other way when news comes along that might disturb its viewers, who still number in the millions during primetime hours.”
Matt Gertz, who tracks Fox News for Media Matters, told Sullivan the pattern reflects a deliberate editorial choice. “This is the ‘negative space’ of Fox News coverage, in which they pretend something is simply not happening,” Gertz said.
“Trumpian corruption is the biggest part of this,” Gertz added. “Thus the endless self-dealing and self-enrichment of Trump, his family and his allies are subjects left to others.” The wedding investigation, Gertz said, “falls squarely into this category.”
Sullivan wrote that normal news outlets are concerned with informing their audience. Fox’s network stars and executives, she wrote, citing Gertz, “are concerned with coddling their audience and maintaining the GOP’s political power.” Fox is also concerned with how Trump views the network and what he says about individual hosts — a dynamic Sullivan called the “audience of one” syndrome.
“Trump sometimes complains about Fox, but there’s little doubt that he’s watching closely, as he posts segments and praises individual hosts,” Sullivan wrote.
The result, Sullivan wrote, is that Fox’s viewer “is in a bubble and happy to stay there.” An Axios poll she cited found that 53% of respondents said the word “corrupt” describes Trump more than any other quality — followed by “dangerous,” “out of touch” and “cruel.” But 23% said “corrupt” does not describe him.
Those respondents, Sullivan wrote, “don’t seem to know about the cryptocurrency schemes, the insider trading, the pay-to-play pardons and the lavish gifts such as a $400m jet from Qatar.” Or, she added, “the Russian oligarch, close to Putin, who was somehow moved to finance a Trump son’s wedding.”
Sullivan offered two explanations for how some viewers might not know. They “could simply have their heads in the sand,” she wrote. “Or they could think they’re staying informed while watching Fox as it once again explores its favorite prime-time topics — race and gender in the WNBA, panic over commie Democrats, the evils of socialism and the troubles that come with illegal immigration.”
Sullivan also noted that Fox’s primetime hosts, who had championed Trump’s Iran war months earlier and made it a favorite topic, have since added that conflict to a list of subjects the network prefers to avoid. “Why? Because it’s unpopular and upsetting,” she wrote.
“Of course, so is Trump himself, which raises the vexing question of Fox’s exit strategy from the president the network has supported so diligently and helped at nearly every turn,” Sullivan wrote. “No Fox, no President Trump, one might argue. But now, Trump, with his bottom-dwelling approval ratings and waning power, looks more and more like a problem for the network. So far, though, he’s one problem that Fox refuses to ignore.”
Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture.