Fox News' historic mistake
Sponsored by

Note: This story is more than 3 years old.

Fox News' historic mistake

Here's a large statement with scanty evidence, yet one I believe nonetheless: 21st century media historians will record that the decline of Fox News Channel as a dominant force in right-wing politics began on May 16, 2011.

Not that Fox is showing any particular signs of immediate weakness. It dominates its two cable news competitors in most meaningful measures, and essentially owns the conservative news brand in America. Conventional wisdom says that Fox – which holds the distinction of being simultaneously the country's most trusted and least trusted TV news channel – will be a dominant player in the news business for the foreseeable future.

 But sniff around Fox for a while and see if you don't catch a whiff of decay.

The seeds of its coming decline were planted long ago, and much of what will become of Fox is written in generational demographic data, not in a single segment of The O'Reilly Factor. But it's hard to escape the conclusion that letting Bill O'Reilly bring Jon Stewart on the network to debate the comedian's critique of the channel's "selective outrage machine" was a milestone mistake of historic proportions.

It's unclear what O'Reilly and the executives at Fox thought would happen during the segment, but the result was one of those moments that rattles across American society in unexpected ways. O'Reilly framed the discussion of Common's invitation to a White House poetry reading as a culture-war crime against American police officers, but Stewart flipped the script to a direct assault on the channel's calculated demagoguery.People paid attention, and the overwhelming morning-after consensus is that Stewart won. America's usually combative conservative pundit class has been noticeably quiet on the story. Not a mention on Drudge. Not a peep from Malkin, Instapundit, the MRC or Red State. Andrew Breitbart's staff eventually warmed to the task, but only to change the subject.

Fox promoted the Common controversy to create an anti-Obama narrative during the White House's weeklong "We got Osama" victory lap. This was probably obvious to most observers, but it was essentially invisible to adherents of conservative media theology, which asserts that non-conservative media outlets are illicitly biased in favor of liberals, and therefore fundamentally not credible. In the resulting echo-chamber, Fox executives have been increasingly free to pursue partisan narratives more akin to the fever-dreams of wingnut bloggers than the stodgy, fact-constrained coverage of professional news operations. People generally like news that confirms what they already believe, and Fox is in the business of increasing the intensity of those beliefs.

But the Stewart-O'Reilly debate went awry. An O'Reilly interview is supposed to be a cathartic morality play, and when Papa Bear failed to deliver the anticipated smack-down, the result had to feel disconcerting to his regulars.

Fox viewers were introduced Monday night to an alternate reality where Fox News and its most popular personality were proven to be something other than invincible. And since sheer dominance is a big part of Fox's branding ("The Most Powerful Name in News"), any hint of weakness feels particularly troublesome to the channel and its supporters.

Thanks to our donors and sponsors for their support of local independent reporting. Join Ivan Michael Kasser, Rose-Mary Grzasko & Bill Vaughn, and Jane Zavisca and contribute today!

Conservative media is generally in an uncomfortable place in May 2011.  Glenn Beck and Fox are parting ways, and despite his multimedia empire, Beck's syndicated radio show is suffering from falling ratings, an effective advertising boycott and a diminishing roster of radio stations. Rush Limbaugh's ratings are down as well, and a new method of counting listeners is revealing a sampling bias that may have for decades systematically inflated ratings for political talk.

Whatever the explanation, right-wing media bullies no longer look quite so intimidating, and Fox finds itself bedeviled by the burdens of empire. As David Frum so famously asserted during the 2010 health care fight, "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we're discovering we work for Fox. And this balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican party."

Which means that Roger Ailes is feeling some pressure. Though generally acknowledged as a TV genius,nothing in the man's record suggests that he's capable of leading an effective political movement. Create the orchestrated illusion of a grass-roots Tea Party movement? Easy. Convert that to legislative success? Difficult. But as the owner of the 2011 GOP, Ailes has to deliver both media profits and conservative policies.

Even the GOP's creepy anti-union victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio this winter look Pyrrhic, a classic over-reach that has reawakened blue-collar voters and shoved them directly into the arms of the Democratic Party. Like the fake candidacy of Donald Trump, the modern conservative movement is great at attracting attention and fundamentally ill-equipped to govern.

Absent an unlikely and dramatic reversal of fortune in 2012, conservatives will face some soul-searching questions in 2013. None will loom larger than this one: How do you build a political future when the heart of your party is an aging white demographic and your political opponents keep winning overwhelming majorities among new voters and minorities year after year?

Fox lacks an answer to that question, and its piss-off-grandpa-and-scare-grandma-to-death programming is unlikely to attract new influxes of twentysomethings. It's the dominant force in 24-hour cable news, but as a combination political movement and media jauggernaut, Fox is an evolutionary dead end.

In 2008, the most recent year for which I could find good information, the median age of a Fox viewer was 65. That same year, the median age of a Daily Show viewer was 35.

History suggests that great empires seldom fall because of dramatic events. They just slowly poison their own soil until nothing grows but weeds and thistles, and one day the mighty collapse like empty suits of armor.

Today, the currents of history are swirling around the immobile empire of Fox News, eroding its foundation like a sandcastle at high tide. Every time its defenses are breached – every time a truth-teller like Jon Stewart is allowed to speak directly to a Fox audience, exposing viewers to the foolishness they have endorsed – the empire hollows out a bit more.

Plan accordingly.

Thanks to our donors and sponsors for their support of local independent reporting. Join Anonymous, Anna Mirocha, and Katharine Peterson and contribute today!

This piece was originally posted on xark.typepad.com.


Dan Conover is a media consultant based in Charleston, SC. He was formerly a newspaper journalist with more than 20 years experience as a reporter, editor, videographer, blogger and Web administrator.

- 30 -
have your say   

3 comments on this story

3
2 comments
May 21, 2011, 7:13 am
-2 +0

Tell me conservatives: what you conserving? What in the world does that mean? That conservatives don’t care about conservation? Why would you bring up the Presidents’ birth certificate? I never believed he was not born in America. If there was any truth to that our entire country: conservatives, liberals, independents, un-decideds, would all look foolish in the eyes of the world.

I think the bigger problem is noone knows whom to believe today as far as media is concerned. I watch a multitude of Networks and try to understand what is true and what is un-true. You think O’Reilly is manipulative? So does that mean you think the other anchors or Networks are not manipulative?

And yes, I think O’Reilly says what he thinks and presents both sides. And I have read his books and I can relate to his background and upbringing and I watch his shows.

I think my comments gave you my point of view. Your view that O’Reilly and Fox News is all hatred wrapped up as something else is extremely disturbing. Give me a clear cut example of hatred on his show and I’ll listen. My guess is you don’t like O’Reilly or Fox. You don’t think they represent your point of view and they are all haters. We can agree to disagree.

2
20 comments
May 20, 2011, 8:38 am
-0 +3

@gatorsgranny

The real problem is your opinion lumps O’Reilly in with Beck, Hannity and others. If you spend about 2 weeks watching O’Reilly, you’ll see he looks at both sides and then says what he thinks. He invites people on the left onto his show all the time to debate him. Who else does this? O’Reilly is conservative but questions the right as well as the left.

Is that what you think O’Reilly is? 

“Conservative?”

I remember when O’Reilly’s show on Fox was still fairly new, and the buzz about it was how he’s so “independent.”  I didn’t think that at the time, nor did I find him “conservative.”  He seemed to me like a crafty political hate-baiter, and still does.  But that’s neither nor conservative; it’s just manipulative.  And that’s become rather the case with Fox (and like-minded media) in general: hatred is being dispensed in a wrapper that says, rather flatteringly: conservative.

What’s truly sad is that the audience doesn’t know what, in the relevant sense, “conservative” even means.  It’s a thing they pride themselves on, a good thing to be.  The word seems to imply a certain integrity and common sense.  And so if suspicion about the circumstances of the birth of our black President fits that mold, well, that’s just being conservative, right?

Tell me, Conservatives: what are you conserving?

1
2 comments
May 17, 2011, 7:19 pm
-4 +1

I watched the Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly segment last night and no I’m not 65 years old. I guess what I would offer in response to this article is simply: this is why people don’t read newspaper websites any more. Jon Stewart on Bill O’Reilly is News? This is the tipping point to Fox News Channel’s downturn? Where are you objective in this article Dan? Oh wait you aren’t with the paper that published this.

The real problem is your opinion lumps O’Reilly in with Beck, Hannity and others. If you spend about 2 weeks watching O’Reilly, you’ll see he looks at both sides and then says what he thinks. He invites people on the left onto his show all the time to debate him. Who else does this? O’Reilly is conservative but questions the right as well as the left. But unfortunately, the left has labeled him as the spokesperson for Fox News. Why? My guess is you are just really haven’t watched his program. It’s OK, I didn’t watch him for a long time. Watch his show and them write an intelligent article.

No one seems to trust anyone in America anymore. Isn’t that the real problem in the U.S.? And your article just fuels the fire thst the right is white old males who are out of touch.

At first blush, it sounds like you grew up in the 60’s but my guess is you are just haven’t lived long enough to understand the older you get the more you learn that making predictions are easy because in our society of today, no one will remember what you wrote yesterday because they are focused on today and what they need to do tommorow.

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Youtube Video