Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Megyn Kelly, Donald Trump, and the Decline of Fox News
For the first time in 14 years, CNN is beating Fox News, whose ratings have nosedived in the last eight months, ever since Donald Trump’s rise. Radio host Mark Levin, who has taken to calling Fox, “the Donald Trump superPAC,” blames the decline on its blatant Donald Trump cheerleading.
The most egregious example occurred the day of the Indiana primary. Trump opined about the conspiracy theory that Ted Cruz’s father assisted Lee Harvey Oswald. The talking heads at Fox nodded politely as if they were hearing something serious, instead of the career-ending ravings of a lunatic. They didn’t even challenge Trump on the fact that this story came from The National Inquirer, a scandal rag run by his friend, David Pecker. This episode was embarrassing for Trump, but even more for Fox. But the pro-Trump bias is only part of the explanation; it doesn’t explain that part of the decline that predated their Trump infatuation.
Looking back, I think Fox News’ descent began at that disastrous first Republican debate when the objective of the moderators seemed to be to get the candidates fighting with one another, and when Megyn Kelly attacked Trump using Hillary Clinton’s “War on Women” playbook. The purpose of an all-candidate debate is to educate the voter on what the candidates stand for. Instead, Fox played games. Go after the candidates hard on substantive issues important to conservative voters, but don’t play favorites. At the time, the debate’s sky-high TV ratings made it seem like a triumph but, in retrospect, it was the first sign of trouble.
And let’s be frank: Fox did a deplorable job covering the Republican nomination race. First they went all-in for Jeb Bush. Then, after Bush bombed, they went in the tank for Marco Rubio, and when he dropped out, they picked their pom-poms up for Donald Trump. Who wants to watch propaganda? Hey Fox, did you ever consider covering the Republican race honestly and dispassionately? I don’t have a problem with individual commentators openly taking sides. That’s just natural and anything less would be dishonest. But that sort of partisanship can’t be scaled up to an entire news network. The whole premise of Fox News is to be fair and balanced coverage of the news from a conservative perspective.
To have done that, they would have had to cover every GOP candidate fairly. By all means ask them tough questions – addressing the concerns of conservatives and libertarians that the Main Stream Media systematically ignores. They should have also provided a little bit of airtime to marginal candidates like Rick Santorum and Jim Gilmore. This would have helped provide a complete picture of the race to their viewers. For instance, Gilmore was dismissed out of hand for his low poll numbers, but weren’t these numbers at least partly due to the fact that he never got any air time? What were his actual positions on issues and what solutions did he offer? I can’t say, because the media ignored him.
And then there is Megyn Kelly. I commented at the time of the infamous first Fox debate that I thought that the underlying message of her attack on Trump was, “I may be the star of a successful conservative news network but I am also ‘flexible,’ in that I’d consider a job on broadcast TV, too.'” Her subsequent Vanity Fair cover only confirmed my suspicions. Later, she openly mused in an interview about the possibility of moving on from Fox a year or so from now. I hope her collapsing rating have brought her back down to earth.
If I were Roger Ailes, my response to the bad ratings would be to can the cheerleading and return Fox to the “Fair and Balanced” – from a conservative perspective – formula that made it such a success in the first place. As it is, Fox is going down, not because their formula failed, but because it was abandoned.
If there is some kind of secret arrangement with the Trump campaign, I would end it immediately. Next, I would replace than preening narcissist Geraldo Riviera with Sharyl Attkisson, a top-notch investigative journalist. She may not be a doctrinaire conservative, but she is relentless in the pursuit of the truth and doesn’t let politics — hers or anybody else’s — get in the way. That’s exactly the quality that is needed and one that is all too rare in the media. For the life of me, I can’t understand why Fox didn’t immediately snap her up after CBS canned her for investigating Obama. They picked up Juan Williams after NPR fired him and Williams is a second-rate liberal hack who says nothing original. I’d also frog march Kelly into my office and give her an ultimatum: Get your ego in check — right now — or go get another job.
But if Fox News insists on remaining the propaganda organ of the Trump Empire, expect Fox’s ratings to slide further. They have had their wake-up call.
Published in Politics
I used to watch Fox News and haven’t in over a year simply because I don’t watch live TV anymore. I prefer cheaper on-demand content for entertainment and prefer reading news. Perhaps a significant portion of formers viewers have similarly abandoned cable altogether.
If there is a somewhat consistent bias across Fox News programming, it might be due more to coworker community (“group think”) than to a concerted effort. There must be plenty of interaction between the various hosts and regular guests. Some gradual conformity of thought is to be expected.
But I don’t have a dog in this fight. When someone accused Gretchen Carlson of bias, I defended her statement because the statement itself reveals no bias. But I don’t know how that statement compares to her usual routine.
I understand that Roger Ailes had been side-lined somewhat – I wonder if that explains much of the fall.
I don’t have cable anymore but would watch Fox News segments & shows off of Roku – I haven’t in 5 or 6 months.
I’d actually start firing the ‘opinion show hosts’: Hannity, OReilly, Kelly and Van Sustreren.
Special Report is still valuable. Give Bill Whittle a show, Larry Klavan, co-produce shows with The Blaze or PJTV (help both entities out) – get the hell out of New York – I think that the NYC centered focus (the NYC/Wash DC – Center of the Universe mindset is also part of the problem).
Your cited article actually criticizes CNN for overcovering Trump.
CNN has added balance. More conservatives, less snark. They may have finally figured it out.
Fox is way too personality driven. Too many opinion shows because they now have too many egos to balance. They need to cut back to three opinion shows and more hard news in novel ways. More ‘local spots’.
I understand the Murdoch kids are pushing Ailes aside.
Oh, and you’re spot on regarding Sheryl Attkinson – fine and talented reporter. I’ve watched her new show and it’s a quality production. I’d like to see Bernie Goldberg placed in an network/editorial position as well, he’s a bit lefty but he’s fair and distills stories to their facts and importance well.
That’s pretty funny, as Trump supporters are cheering the decline of Fox because they think Roger Ailes tried to sink his candidacy with Megyn Kelly doing the dirty work. And Mark Levin is still fuming that Cruz was rejected at the polls, so he’s still looking for scapegoats.
I’m lurking tonight on Ricochet so will add my thoughts here. I used to watch quite a bit of Fox News programming but have pretty much stopped watching all the evening shows because the amount of Trump-love is so overwhelming, it’s nauseating and embarrassing (for Fox) at the same time. The absolute worst is Sean Hannity closely followed by Greta Van Sustern.
Thank goodness it’s spring (almost summer) and I have baseball to watch in the evening now. And yes, I know the Nationals kicked our tail today.
I must admit to having missed the Jeb and Marco cheerleading.
Yeah, that’s not my recollection either.
I watched the debates on Fox but I find CNN actually has been better at covering the election the last several months. I rarely watch Fox now and don’t spend a great deal of time watching CNN either.
Oh please, for you guys anybody not calling trump frankenstien hitler is “in the tank for trump.”
So color me skeptical as to your characterizations.
You just nailed 95% of the broadcast news media.
I think the criticism of Megyn Kelly is a little off. She threw the Dawnud the first inside fastball he’d ever seen, and she handcuffed him. He hasn’t gotten very many since then, but they’re going to be coming hot and heavy from here on out.
FOX doesn’t have a consistent bias. It has a bunch of hosts. Some of them will put on nothing but wall to wall Trump backers. Some have a mix. Sometimes the hosts are undecided; Hannity liked both Trump and Cruz, for instance. There are a lot of the guys who would guest in 2014-2015 who were Rubio guys, so the straight news programs would often have a Rubio bias through legacy staff. Essentially the “experts” (ex-office holders, think tanks, academics) generally leaned Marco, so if they were on to explain something it went that way. The colorful guests went for the colorful candidates and the opinion show guests with the host. Exceptions to all.
This seems like a more reasonable assessment. I think Brit Hume, Stephen Hayes were probably rooting for Rubio when they offered some occasional commentary but I wouldn’t say the Fox anchors were in Rubio’s camp. In the last month or two it became clear that Hannity was in the tank for Trump though he was polite to Cruz, his man-crush on Trump was nauseating even conveying to Trump that he was shocked that anyone could suggest that he called for violence at any of his rallies and that he had examined all the videos and could find absolutely no instances where Trump had done so. Toady.
As I recall, Brit Hume along with Karl Rove were big conventional wisdom guys who in 2015 dismissed Trump as a joke and Cruz was the evil villain. Hannity was more Cruz and O Reilly was for OReilly.
They then vacillated as mostly Jeb as inevitable and Marco was the possible fresh face.
When Cruz took Iowa with Trump a close second, it upended the conventional wisdom a bit and they were clearly Marco and sanity will prevail after New Hampshire.
When Trump took NH, they got unmoored and the Trump and anti Trump factions on Fox began, with Hannity and Eric Bolling on one side and Megan and Chris Wallace on the other. I am still convinced Chris Wallace wants Bill Clinton to return to power. Hume went off to sulk and kept proclaiming that everyone was on dope.
Behind the scenes, from what I hear, Murdoch and Ailes were not in line with each other but then the Trump ratings rolled in and the rest is as usual, follow the money.
I am old and my memory plays tricks, but that’s the way I got it in my head.
So TNI is run by a man with the last name of Pecker, sometimes it’s the small things in life.
The way many Fox personalities insist that they are not in the tank for Trump, when they so obviously are, is just as grating as when NBC insists that it is not in the tank for Hillary (and all Democrats) when it so obviously is. I’m not sure which bothers me more – the absence of fair and balanced news, or the contempt shown for viewers through the telling of such transparent and ridiculous lies about the absence of bias.
I wonder what would happen if they just tried reporting the new, fair and balanced?
They might actually NOT be in the tank for the guy, but rather be seeking the ratings this man brings them. In the end, it might just be about money and career. What a tragedy.
And then the real entertainment will begin. This man is so thin skinned; he is easy to provoke and he can be counted on to respond in a juvenile manner.
Maybe. But if they just want ratings, they could have Trump on without fawning over him. I’m pretty sure that Trump wouldn’t boycott Fox News if they didn’t treat the “Cruz’s dad killed JFK” story as if it were an actual news story. The Five has never had Trump on their show, but Eric Bolling is so in the tank for Trump that it literally makes me gag. Literally. I won’t watch that show without a barf bag at hand.*
*Why am I watching at all then, you ask? I think Dana Perino is smart and Greg Gutfeld is funny.
I like Brett Baier, but I thought Fox News began a slow slide with the departure of Brit Hume.
I watched Fox News for the last year or so because my wife was watching it to catch up on the day’s events.
The fact is, though, that I can’t stand most of the prime-time shows on Fox. Hannity, Kelly, O’Reilly (apparently an Irish surname is a prerequisite to having a show on Fox… I digress.) are all just the host and a couple of panelists yelling at each other, with no actual information being dispensed in the process.
The Five is great, as is Outnumbered, and Greg Gutfeld is what Jon Stewart wanted to be, but other than that, I’d rather watch a barfight than listen to Fox.
I always thought CNN’s best hope for survival was to point to MSNBC on the left and Fox on the right and say, “They’re both nuts!” I don’t have cable, but it sounds like they came to the same conclusion.
If finding a picture of Cruz’s dad in proximity to Oswald proves that Cruz’s dad was an assassin, I sure would like to see some pictures of Trump with Bernie Madov, Jack Abramoff, Charles Keating, and other white collar criminals. I feel confident that Trump has met these people and pictures were taken.
The only thing I wonder about is whose reputation suffers more from the proximity – Trump or those other guys.
I don’t think they ever proved it was Cruz’s dad in that picture, did they? I saw the article, and I think it had ‘well-lawyered’ language about how the guy ‘might’ be father Cruz.
I don’t think Fox was pro-Trump at all. A lot of the National Review “manifesto” guys are commentators.
On the contrary: Fox is responsible for the alleged “woman problem” a la this spurious Kelly- Trump feud–which has completely obscured the far more relevant facts: Trump has hired a lot of women, and paid them well, and according to all accounts, treated them the same as their male colleagues. And as I’ve written before, even his ex-wives, and their children, support him! (People think money could buy that; as I wrote before, in my experience with divorce and custody:NOT.)
Maybe, or maybe we conservatives were played all along, since “conservative” for many Fox “personalities” means “let’s rake in the dough by pretending we’re tough conservatives.”
I say let Fox choke on their Trump addiction, though I continue to like Brett Baier.
Another factor in Fox’s relative decline compared to CNN is that CNN has quietly been reforming itself. I did not notice this myself since I don’t watch CNN, but according to Rush Limbaugh, CNN has hired a number of conservatives, and has treated them with respect.
If this is true, this is important. A crack in MSM liberalism has appeared. I was wondering how long the other networks were going to leave the windfall profits for catering to conservatives all to Fox.
I like Megyn. O’Reilly is insufferable and Hannity can’t be taken too seriously.