Dem
50
GOP
50
"Tell me something I don't already know," you're saying. Yes, it is true that 98% of the time, the line that Fox "News" draws between journalism, on one hand, and editorial/Republican propaganda, on the other hand, is so fuzzy that you can't be sure which is which. However, for the last several news cycles, there has been one clear exception to that, and that is their Election Day decision desk. That would be the same decision desk that, famously, correctly called Arizona for Joe Biden before any other outlet.
Yesterday, Media Matters' Matt Gertz had a piece warning that even the Fox decision desk is no longer reliable. The broad problem is that, in the 4 years since 2020, the journalism part of Fox, such as it is, has even further degraded. Serious journalists and hosts, most notably Chris Wallace, have decamped for other outlets. Meanwhile, the talking-head propagandists—your Hannitys and Gutfelds (sorry, Gutfelds!) and Ingrahams—are even more fully empowered.
The more specific problem is that, on that fateful night in 2020, the credibility of the decision desk began to deteriorate before our very eyes (even if that was not entirely clear at the time). In addition to Arizona, the decision desk wanted to be the first to (correctly) call Nevada for Biden. This was an hour or so after the Arizona call, and the blowback from viewers and Republican officeholders was already so fierce that Fox executives stepped in and forbade making a call on Nevada. Meanwhile, Fox "journalists" Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, live on air, were actively trying to undermine the Arizona call.
The crying shame of it is that the Fox decision desk still has good people. And Arnon Mishkin, who oversees that part of the operation, and who just did an interview with The New York Times, said he intends to do good work in 2024. But given the flashing red lights, you just can't be confident he'll be able to deliver.
Actually, that's not 100% true. There's a tool used by historians, particularly historians who study the Bible, called the "criterion of embarrassment" (and sometimes called "declaration against interests"). Basically, if someone writes something that is adverse to their interests, and that they would have no reason to lie about, then there's a good chance it's true. If Fox calls a key state—North Carolina, or Pennsylvania, or Arizona again—for Kamala Harris, we'd probably consider that credible. But if they do the same for Trump, well, we already know that we are going to wait until we hear from the AP or some other nonpartisan news organization before we believe it. After all, in addition to the concerns outlined above, this is also the outlet that prematurely called Florida for George W. Bush in 2000. (Z)