Jacob L. Nelson, University of Utah
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.
Fox is consistently the most-watched cable news channel, far ahead of competitors like MSNBC and CNN. That’s in large part due to people like Tucker Carlson, whose show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” has been one of the highest-rated in cable news. But on April 24, Fox announced that Carlson is leaving the network, and while no explanation was provided, it’s safe to say it wasn’t a lack of viewers.
Carlson’s departure came on the heels of Fox News’ US$787.5 million settlement of the lawsuit lodged by Dominion Voting Systems over the network’s promotion of misinformation about the 2020 election. Dominion had cited claims made on Carlson’s program as well as on other shows as evidence of defamation, and Carlson was expected to testify 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.
More real than elites
I’m a journalism scholar who studies the relationship between the news industry and the public, and I’ve long been interested in understanding Fox’s appeal. As media scholar Reece Peck observes in his book about the network, Fox’s success is less about politics than it is about style. Fox’s star broadcasters like Carlson found enormous success by embracing an authenticity-as-a-form-of-populism approach.
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 expertise is more often a criticism than a compliment.
As Peck notes, 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.
In short, NPR plays smooth jazz between segments, while Fox plays country.
‘Authenticity’ became a trap
This anti-establishment, working-class persona embraced by many of Fox’s broadcasters has always been a performance.
Back in 2000, Bill O’Reilly, whom the network would eventually pay tens of millions of dollars a year, called his show the “only show from a working-class point of view.”
More recently, Sean Hannity, who is a friend of former President Donald Trump’s and makes about $30 million a year, slammed “overpaid” media elites. Peck observes 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.”
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.
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.
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 “our viewers are good people and they believe it.” 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.
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.
As New York Times TV critic James Poniewozik observed, “The customer is always right. In fact, the customer is boss.”
A trendsetter and a cautionary tale
The Dominion lawsuit was more than a rare opportunity to see firsthand just how dishonestly Fox’s talent acted when the cameras were rolling.
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.
“As a society, we … love the idea of people ‘being themselves,’” says scholar Emily Hund, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center on Digital Culture and Society and the author of “The Influencer Industry: The Quest for Authenticity on Social Media.”
The question that many seem to implicitly ask themselves when deciding whether to trust journalists 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?”
Media workers have noticed: Journalists, celebrities and marketers 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.
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.
Jacob L. Nelson, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Utah
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Conversation is a nonprofit, independent news organization dedicated to unlocking the knowledge of experts for the public good. We publish trustworthy and informative articles written by academic experts for the general public and edited by our team of journalists.
At TheConversation.com (and through distribution of our articles to thousands of news outlets worldwide), you’ll find explanatory journalism on the events, discoveries and issues that matter today. Our articles share researchers’ expertise in policy, science, health, economics, education, history, ethics and most every subject studied in colleges and universities. Some articles offer practical advice grounded in research, while others simply provide authoritative answers to questions that sparked our curiosity.
The Conversation U.S. is part of a global group of news organizations founded in Australia in 2011 by Andrew Jaspan, a former newspaper editor who wanted to encourage academics to engage with the public, and Jack Rejtman. Jaspan led the U.S. launch in October 2014. Our main newsroom is in Boston, with editors working remotely in cities across the country.
There are also editions in Africa, Australia, Canada, France, Indonesia, New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom.
Supporters of Tucker Carlson represent all economic and educational levels. I assume you watched his show over the years, or you would have no standing to make any comments on it. But then…you may only read quips from liberal media to base your evaluation of his research team. Based on my own research, he was not fired over Dominion lawsuit. In fact on Monday night, he was prepared to speak on that topic and how he never supported that Dominium was in violation. One would be more inclined to the reason for Carlson’s cancellation was over remarks he made during… Read more »
Faux “News” is deplorable in its continuous repetition of lies, right wing conspiracy theories, race and gender degradation, inciting violence, etc. Free speech has nothing to do with it. This is the media propaganda arm of the Repugnican party! They will do and say anything to keep their cohorts in power and push what’s left of this democracy into Fascism and Authoritarianism. They care only about themselves, ratings, making the far cats fatter, uplifting rich white males and putting down everyone and everything else. I could go on and on…..Suffice it to say that Faux “News” should go bankrupt and… Read more »
And CNN and MSNBC don’t also have an “agenda?” They’re all after one thing: money. I don’t care for any of them.
Fox News is very elitist in the makeup of the behind-the-scenes-folks-pulling-the-wagons. They will not respond to viewer’s concerns, in fact they make it very difficult for viewers to connect with the wagon pullers who are calling the shots. Out of maybe 10 submissions, I heard back from one, but with no follow up regarding an exposed problem I noted to them. Intentionally not wanting to hear where the rubber meets the road, is a recipe for problems. all of the following have found other ground from that of Fox: O’Reilly, Bolling, Beck, Rosen, Dobbs, and Carlson will.