"A Man Hears What He Wants To Hear, And Disregards The Rest"

I've been hearing lots of back and forth about how outrageous it is that Fox knowingly lied to its audience about the 2020 election but all this analysis is missing something important: Fox's viewers *want* Fox to lie to them. /1

— Julie Roginsky (@julieroginsky) March 3, 2023

Like all good fairy tales, the ones Fox feeds its audience have a familiar arc. The MAGA hero sets out on a quest to make America great again, only to be waylaid by an evil liberal. At this point, as in all fairy tales, the plot gets scary. /3

— Julie Roginsky (@julieroginsky) March 3, 2023

The fairy tale analogy is not a bad one, but it's not on all fours with the reality here.

And keep tuning in and tuning in. Because it gets scarier and scarier. But at the end, the children need validation that truth and justice will prevail. The Brothers Grimm knew this. The Family Murdoch knows this too. /5

— Julie Roginsky (@julieroginsky) March 3, 2023

But when your entire business model is predicated on feeding fairy tales to your audience, who have been conditioned to expect a happy ending, you need to give the audience what it wants. /7

— Julie Roginsky (@julieroginsky) March 3, 2023

Their viewers know this and expect it of Fox -- even if , and especially if, some of them know they were lied to. Because Fox loves them so much that it is willing to risk everything for them. That's the kind of brand loyalty no one can buy. /9

— Julie Roginsky (@julieroginsky) March 3, 2023

One more thing: back in my day, Fox hired a few real liberals who would push back on the BS. But after Trump, that all changed. As far as I can tell, there is only one left. The rest just play "liberal" on tv but provide zero push back against the fairy tales spooned out. /11

— Julie Roginsky (@julieroginsky) March 3, 2023

The better understanding is the issue of identity, and what challenges that.  We all draw our identity from social surroundings (we are, after all, "social creatures").  Most of us gravitate toward a middle, a "norm."  Even if we fancy ourselves "independent thinkers" or "out of the mainstream," our basic identity is still centered on an accepted "norm" that doesn't overly disturb anyone else.

And then we run into people who don't share our sense of normal, be the differences regional (an East Texan like me running into an NYC native.  I actually had the experience of sitting next to a Brooklyn Jew (no slander, you'll see why I say that in a minute) at a Catholic wedding, and explaining in answer to his polite questions (he was a great guy) what was going on.  Even though I wasn't sure myself, not being Catholic.) or racial, national, sexual preference, what have you.  Most of us adjust, see the person before us instead of the "category" or the threat to our sense of self (identity), and learn to get along with people who aren't like the people we were raised around.  Our sense of identity can allow for theirs.

Some of us don't, however.

It's easy to seek groups who reaffirm your sense of identity.  That's how I'd restate the analysis above, and keep the conclusions and most of the reasoning.  Not that FoxNews viewers prefer a fairy-tale (fairy tales should be maligned that way.  They're a form of story-telling with a distinct and valuable purpose, not a bunch of "just so" stories designed to make you feel better.  Read "Godfather Death," collected by the Brothers Grimm, and get back to me on how comforting it is.  Or the story of Cinderella's sisters, who chop of part of their foot to fit into the slipper, and the Prince only notices when the blood is oozing out into his carriage as they ride away.  Fairy-tales are much more about reality than FoxNews ever was.).  They just, like most of us (I still remember the coverage of Vietnam, and how shocked the nation was when Walter Cronkite stated the obvious:  that the war wasn't worth it.  Or how long it took for Dr. King to go from being an "agitator" to being a plaster saint.), prefer to be told what we prefer to be told.  The only real issue is how "mainstream" one set of ideas is, over another.  Or, legitimately, how dangerous the ideas are to democracy.  Although no small part of the nation thought the civil rights movement was dangerous to democracy, and a wider swathe was sure (again, Dr. King v. WaPo is instructive) that the anti-war movement was really dangerous to democracy. Context is all.

I think the likelier outcome for FoxNews than losing its audience (I agree; they won't) may be business contracts.  On another Twitter thread I read an analysis of FoxNews, which draws most of its income from contracts it arranged with cable providers so that it receives premium channel fees from the company, while providing a basic cable (accessible to all subscribers) channel.  But those contracts are (about 60% of them, anyway) coming up for renewal soon.  With cable subscribers aging out and dropping off, those terms for FoxNews may not be so desirable after all.  So, with or without Dominion, with or without the loyalty of the 3 million (out of 90 million cable subscribers), FoxNews may be screwed by demographics.  Cable is dying, and the FoxNews audience is dying faster.

(And the funny part about FoxNews is how they once had "liberals" on air, to be "balanced," or at least appear so.  Hannity shared his name in the title with a "liberal" on his show.  FoxNews also had a "serious" journalistic side, and the "entertainment" side at night.  Which wasn't all that distinctive when poll results usually start appearing after dark, and even Murdoch had to admit he wanted to keep his audience from bolting because of Arizona.  I mention this because FoxNews was never a serious journalistic enterprise, and didn't shift suddenly because Roger Ailes died or Trump ran for POTUS in 2015.  Yet during the Obama era "serious reporters" defended its right to have a seat in the Press Room with vigor and all the seeming as if they were channeling the ghost of the "Founding Fathers."  Useful idiots, one and all.)