Flat White

Trump's 'Fox ban' wishful thinking by Democrats

5 August 2022

1:50 PM

5 August 2022

1:50 PM

In the most outrageous piece of transference bias, the left-liberal New York Times reported that Fox News had not invited Donald Trump onto its network in over 100 days. It claimed that this assumed censorship of the former President was part of an effort to displace Trump from the news cycle and thereby reduce his exposure as de facto leader of the Republican Party.

Demonstrating the inherent publisher power of reading minds, the New York Times was reported by Newsmax as asserting that the decision to shun Trump had been made at ‘the highest levels of Fox New’s parent company, and is backed by its billionaire chairman, Rupert Murdoch, and his son, company CEO Lachlan Murdoch’.

There is some evidence to support a port-drift by Fox News: the appointment of ex-Speaker Paul Ryan to the board, the appointment of Chris Wallace to chair the second debate in 2019, the appointment of Chris Wallace to anything, the downgrading of Tucker Carlson, and the anti-Trump writings of a few Australian journalists employed in America on Fox-owned US newspapers like the Wall Street Journal…  Regardless, it could not be reconciled with the continued success of the leading Fox News journalist Australia’s Miranda Devine, who regularly fills the pages of the New York Post with pro-Trump and anti-Biden column inches. 

The fact that both The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal have criticised Trump’s views on the events of January 6 and his claim of 2020 electoral malfeasance merely reflects New York hunger for any good news related to the Democratic Party, particularly with Joe Biden’s poll numbers more deeply submerged than a nuclear submarine. That this rumour started in the pages of The New York Times is cause for doubt, given the Grey Lady’s reputation for veracity has taken many hits recently. 


A more plausible analysis of the so-called evidence of a missing Trump could as easily have concluded that Fox’s broad-church editorial policy would allow journalists to be employed on matters that attracted the broadest public attention, regardless of their political worldview. That conclusion is more consistent with the overall business interest of the Murdoch family, not to mention the shareholders, to sell as much of their product to as many members of the general public as possible.

Were it the case that senior Fox management had taken to exerting an editorial demand over Fox media assets to run an anti-Trump line, it would suggest an appalling choice by management to support that faction of the Republican Party composed of the never-Trumpers who continue to seek personal wealth as a reward for the execution of power at the expense of ordinary Americans.

Further, a concerted campaign by management to shadowban the former President and silence his complaints of electoral fraud would imply that Trump was correct to criticise the 2020 election.

Despite these concerns, however, the real issue with such a shadowbox, (provided that it is real) is not whether Trump’s views are incorrect or disputed by one, a few, every living journalist, or even the opinions of media billionaires at the highest levels of media organisations. 

Trump’s view of the place of the United States in world affairs, and the place of the President and Congress in the lives of the American people, was approved by over 80 million verified American votes and, if he can organise both public support and that of the Republican Party, he is entitled to again place those views before the American people and let them choose.

It would be like Russian interference for a media organisation to attempt to make that decision for the American people.

 

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.


Show comments
Close