MALIK: Fox News' scandal highlights conflict of interest in modern news
Column: On the Good Life
Dominion’s legal battle with Fox News began as a lawsuit against the "false claims about a stolen election, alleging that the voting technology company was part of a purported plot to steal votes from defeated former president Donald Trump."
What was not expected, though, was the reveal of the hidden workings of Fox News itself, specifically the host’s own opinions on the channel's handling of information.
In text messages, Tucker Carlson, among other Fox News hosts, called out the election fraud claims supported by Trump and his team for being blatantly false while also amplifying the message of election fraud during their own shows.
Possibly one of the most incriminating statements includes him telling Sidney Powell that "if she did not have evidence of election fraud at a massive scale, her repeated claims that millions of votes were changed by voting machines were 'cruel and reckless.'"
This reveal is only more concerning after Keith Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the media empire that owns Fox News, stated that Fox News hosts have amplified the idea that election fraud was committed regarding the 2020 election but denied the idea that "Fox News as a whole had endorsed the stolen election narrative."
While the blame is being placed on the hosts themselves, the confirmation of false claims being endorsed by anyone involved, especially those who do not believe in what was being said, highlights an interesting position that modern news is taking: that of a brand. While this position has become increasingly evident with the general polarization of U.S. politics, this specific case has confirmed that media outlets intentionally perpetuate this trend, which only amplifies existing political division.
What is interesting about these biases is that they are not necessarily personal biases of the hosts. Instead, hosts push forward ideas that they believe the viewers want to hear or that the overarching company wants to sell, even despite Murdoch’s testimony claiming otherwise.
More and more news outlets are playing the roles of brands, spoon-feeding viewers what they want to hear and emphasizing what they should be angry about, what they should be sad about and who they should direct their rage toward.
Rather than people's individual views inclining them to hear from outside perspectives, news companies have become focused on maintaining certain audiences specifically. They focus on their brand image and make sure to keep the viewers they have and make sure they do not move to other sources.
In this way, companies have created a media bubble. These creators, though, do not even believe in the importance of the information they spread.
This is interesting when you remember the hold news can have on emotions and actions. News focuses on the ideas they believe matter the most or believe can incite more anger to keep their viewers engaged while blaming other news outlets for not giving matters they claim are important more attention.
More coverage is equal to more importance given by the company, and consequently, these issues covered can become more important to the viewers afterward. Therefore, companies have the power to determine what is more important to focus on and force reactions out of their viewers, part of what I believe in having helped the January 6 uprising take place.
It is concerning how news outlets can have such a hold over people’s emotions and even their actions. While the specific scandal discussed before focuses on false claims supported by news outlets, there is a greater concern with authentic news reporting receiving misplaced anger because that kind of outrage is what sells.
This concern of intentionally instilling polarizing reactions within audiences is also exacerbated by this desire to retain their audiences by any means necessary and this hope to receive financial support from supporters. With news being covered in more hidden deceit, it is important to tune into different news outlets to receive the same information.
It is essential to see what news is given more emphasis and what is hidden from view. With more reactionary news, it is obvious that fewer outlets will focus on news that does not incite a visceral reaction. But if we want to understand the world, we cannot only tune into what we want to hear and be angry about.
We have to make an effort to be open to more perspectives and pay more attention to what is not so easy to commercialize. With every 15 minutes spent on something to make you angry, that is 15 minutes lost covering a real news story that is authentic and will not make you dependent on that news outlet.
We should expect our news outlets to be more news-focused, not consumer-focused because it is a big world. Not everything can be tuned to us. Sometimes, we have to listen to another tune.
Sehar Malik is a first-year in the School of Arts and Sciences, where she is majoring in molecular biology and biochemistry and minoring in French. Her column, "On the Good Life," runs alternate Thursdays.
*Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Due to space limitations in our print newspaper, letters to the editor must not exceed 900 words. Guest columns and commentaries must be between 700 and 900 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to oped@dailytargum.com by 4 p.m. to be considered for the following day’s publication. Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff
