Brian Stelter: Fox News, Trump And The Distortion Of Truth

hello everyone and welcome to today's  virtual program at the commonwealth   club of california i'm clara jeffrey i'm  editor-in-chief of mother jones magazine   and i'll be moderating today's program we'd like  to thank our members donors and supporters for   making this and all our other programs possible  and we hope that that you guys and others will   follow their example to support the club during  these uncertain times today i'm joined by brian   stelter cnn's chief media correspondent  and author of the best-selling new book hoax donald trump fox news and the dangerous  distortion of truth since the start of trump's   candidacy back in 2005 the symbiotic relationship  between him and fox news has been one of the most   defining aspects of his rise to power together  they've broken previously accepted cultural and   political norms and upended the truth of what  truth means in america through painstaking   investigative work and countless interviews i mean  really just so many interviews brian documents how   fox and friends sean hannity chucker carlson  and the whole gang on the network willfully   spread trump's lies smear his enemies and give  his base an echo chamber as one producer tells   brian and hoax we really don't believe all this  stuff we just tell other people to believe it   we'll be discussing a lot in the next hour there's  been a lot of breaking media news in the past day   and if you're watching along with us  please put any questions in a text   chat on youtube or comments in facebook and  we'll incorporate them later in the program   thank you so much ryan for joining us thank  you how are how are you and uh and yours doing   i'm here in new york where i can actually  see the sun so how are how are you guys   you know i think we're all kind of having a little  bit of existential dread at these uh apocalypse   now skies but you know hanging in there as best  we can yeah if it's not one thing it's the next   if it's one it's not one disaster it's another  disaster you know it how many days i was like   20 20 i guess is the big question at that i  mean can't come can't end soon enough i think   um you uh you say that hoax essentially  is about the foxification of trump and   the trumpification of fox who leads  this dance the president or the network   i've had to try to reckon with this question  because it's a it's a complicated one and it's   hard to know where trump ends and where fox begins  and vice versa but i think it is largely uh fox   driven meaning fox sets the agenda um fox  comes up with the day's narrative or the   day's talking points and the president reacts  to that and there are a hundred examples of him   reacting to what he sees on fox and friends in the  morning or freaking out about something he hears   on a newscast or cheering for something that sean  hannity says at night and those are mostly visible   on his twitter feed right a lot of this is out in  the public record um but in addition to that i had   many sources at fox talk to me about the network's  influence behind the scenes as well what what they   hear internally about trump's obsession with the  network some people are proud of it but many other   people are horrified by it and even top executives  at fox said to me in confidence we wish he'd watch   less tv we wish he would turn the channel which  is a which is a a wild thing to hear someone say   i mean i think all of us are way too  much have seen how he react and and   tweets things out as you say um but i think  what was really interesting about your book   is that it's the much broader parts of his agenda  that are being set by fox and you know you you   you're seen pretty lit on fire by the his reaction  to covid and how that too was shaped by fox so you   say a little bit more about that right well  i mean that is why the book is called hoax   it would have been named wingmen we had  talked about um sean hannity and others   as fox's wingmen as trump's wingmen i'm  gonna probably mix them up a couple more   times tonight uh you know the idea that he has  all these wingmen on fox but when the pandemic   broke everything up and did everything and trump  used the word hoax once and sean hannity used the   word once you know it was pretty clear this is  the the the most uh haunting exam example yet   of how the president's unreality and fox's  unreality has life and death consequences   i am glad that hoax came out a couple weeks  before bob woodward's book um we both have   these one word titles his is a rage mine is hoax  they they do make for a great pairing and i'm not   saying that as a sales pitch but i think what  woodward has done is what we've heard about today   is we've heard this new information from  trump himself from inside the white house   when you pair that with what fox was saying at the  time and what he was hearing from fox you get a   really clear understanding of why the country was  so misled why there was so much down plane of the   disease in february and march partly trump's fault  partly fox's fault obviously there's other other   blame to go around mayors and governors etc but  trump had the biggest platform on in the country   and fox had the biggest platform on cable and  now that we we have these clips of trump talking   early february about the disease in a much  more serious way than he was talking on fox   you know claire i think we need to hear from  people at fox about this um sean hannity and   others who were on the phone with trump being  misled in front of millions of viewers well that   that's interesting because you know the essential  revelation of woodward's book that came out today   was that you know in in latest february trump was  taking it very seriously he knew how deadly it was   knew that it was aerosolized you know knew all  the things that he would deny for months to come   or downplay for months to come all the things that  go into mask wearing and sheltering in place and   so you know i i mean imagine that you would have  to really study woodward's book and probably even   you have not had the chance to do that yet but um  would your supposition be that he kind of started   there and was talked into a more uh treacherous  place by fox vis-a-vis um covid response or   is it just that he can't kind of you know  keep something in his head for very long   right well part of it is that every day  is a new show every day is a new episode   and he programs it it seems it seems  to program it that way certainly fox   programs his presidency that way uh the only  narratives that stay for more than they are   though russia hoax and these other lies about uh  about news um you know but i quote trump in the in   the very beginning the epigraph of the book saying  and this is about kovit it will go away just stay   calm it will go away it was march 10th when there  are other other thousands of people sick already   in washington state in california and new york  um and he was in denial about that publicly so   you're right that this i think there  are still some unanswered questions of   um did he change his tune in public privately  to match what he was saying publicly or not um   either way what we know is that february was  a lost month that trump was behind the curve   in a way that was dangerous and the fox was  behind the curve in a way that was dangerous   and i'm grateful to simon schuster that i was  able to rip up the book and rewrite the first   uh 25 30 pages and rewrite the last four add 40  more pages at the end to capture this because   it is sadly the best example of how this fox trump  feedback loop can have dangerous consequences do you um do you imagine that uh when you when you kind  of contemplate um that shift in his rhetoric that it's about him wanting to look  good or a shifting idea of reality   he's saying now that he wants to be the best  salesman he didn't want people to panic that this   was about um controlling public sentiment in that  way that you know so there wouldn't be i don't   know run on supermarkets more than there was um  but that doesn't really square with your reporting   on his and his demeanor about covet issues  and and other issues what his sort of central   concerns were vis-a-vis perception of him  right i'm thinking about this today i think   it's quite possible that trump is taking in this  information from o'brien and other officials   he's being told how dangerous this disease is  he's being told it's much worse than the flu   he's being told that it's uh you know it spreads  in the air and then he also decides to focus on on   the post impeachment purge and decides to instead  play to his base and make uh his folks feel better   by firing individuals that testified against him  in the ukraine scheme and by you know cheering on   roger stone you know that was what mid february  was about it's what we thought the mid february   was about it was about this post impeachment  revenge tour it was about bringing back the   band together bringing hope picks back from fox  corporation back to the white house uh you know   rick grinnell then over to to the intel agencies  that's what was publicly happening in february   um he was also holding public events by the way  you know uh even though he'd been told of the   danger of the disease all of that that timeline  it was damning in in february and march but it's   so much more damning now six months later and 190  000 lives later um when i reproduced the fox trump   timeline for february and march there are quotes  that were obviously embarrassing at the time you   know people saying now's the best time to fly and  um you know the media is all media hysteria like   we knew that was foolish in march but it sounds  even worse now in retrospect you know by the way   i'm here at cnn in new york i'm in my office where  i rarely am these days because of the pandemic   and the lights have turned off because nobody's  in the building and so the automatic light sensors   have decided that i'm in the dark i mean what a  metaphor you've got your issues in the sky there   and uh you know here at cnn i come into the office  and i typically see only two people when i come in   most of our anchors are here doing their  programs instead of working from home   but you know we don't interact  with anybody we go into our robotic   camera controlled rooms we talk to the camera  and that's it um and it's been six months and   uh the president meanwhile is holding rallies  acting like there is no virus not having social   distancing not having any of those protections  um it's it's a really sad example of two americas   so this gets us to another question of that uh  kind of bubbled up in in media twitter today   um which is people were very angry that bob  woodward knew this back in february right and did   not report it and there was similar criticism on a  lesser scale about mike schmidt's book things that   weren't really revealed or at least fully kind  of articulated until he he wrote his book what   do you think the journalistic ethics are about  knowing things and especially life and death   issues and keeping them from the public for so  long i'm still chewing on this so i'm going to   give you only a partial answer um but i think  woodward's defense is notable he just shared   it with the associated press he said yeah i  had these quotes from from trump in february   but i didn't know how real they were i know they  checked out i didn't know if he was exaggerating   i wanted to know if he was really told this by  his aides and it wasn't until may he says that   he had confidence in the information that  by that point he said his goal was just   to get this book out as fast as possible so uh  putting myself into woodward's head for a moment   as someone who finished hoax in mid-june and then  had to have that you know too long two-month wait   which actually was incredibly fast thank you the  publisher for printing so so quickly um what can   seem like a short amount of time right uh can also  take a very long amount of time so if woodward's   working on this over the summer he knows it's  going to come out in september i'm sure that in   his mind that feels like a really fast turnaround  and a absolutely a responsible thing to do   but i can understand why the folks on  the outside are looking at this saying   if he knew in february why didn't you tell us by  march that i think presupposes that would anything   have changed would there have been a consequence  and i don't know if there would have been do you   think there would have been a consequence if  these quotes have come out let's say in may   let's take may as a fair middle ground here  would there have been a consequence for trump   i don't know well i mean i i think there  wouldn't have been but i i'm happy to be wrong   yeah i think it's impossible to know but notably  that would be right when states were deciding to   open up as we now know too quickly and there was  this sort of rush to appease the sort of anti-mask   folks and you know the demonstrators in michigan  so you know it's interesting uh sadly we don't   have a time machine but it it could have i  i suppose i am more personally disturbed by   what trump was saying publicly at  that time um in february in march   contradicting health officials you know showing  up at events without any protection or social   distancing um almost gleefully rejecting the best  practices and advice given out by his government   and that was all in front of our eyes um so i  guess count me down as a skeptic that knowing   what he was saying privately would have changed  minds or would have made a big difference but like   i said i'm you know we're only a few hours into  the story i kind of want to reserve judgment um   and hear more from woodward and hear more i also  think by the way we need to hear so we've heard   these quotes from trump what about these white  house aides will the democratic lead house call   them will will the democratic white house pursue  this further i think that's an open question   will jim mattis repeat his quotes on camera   no uh i think if if you know i write  in i write in hoax about my naivete   in january of 2017 believing in reince priebus  and sean spicer spicer who i thought was a um   a relatively straight shooter who would be one of  those um you know one of those adults in the room   and i just i thought that because i knew him  personally and uh i had i had the same belief   about reince priebus and one by one every  individual in the trump years disappoints you   and you say to someone like hope hicks or you  say to someone like sean why didn't you stop   him when he called us the enemy that why didn't  you stop him and what they say they have these bs   answers right they say well you're not the  president i'm not the president he's the president   yeah but you're hurt it's hurting him you're  letting him hurt himself as well as the country   and you get these mealy-mouthed answers um  and i don't know if it's any different for the   the rest of the anonymous folks who  are only being quoted secondhand who   who don't seem to want to speak on their  own voices i don't know so let's let's uh   talk about fox and that dynamic it seems like a  central premise that in the book is that there was   a a paradigm shift within fox in 2016 2016 2017  where they went from being you know a let's put   it nicely super feisty partisan operation to sort  of full-blown disinformation enterprise um and   was there a sort of aha moment for you when you  realized that there had been that kind of switch well first of all i bet that you slightly disagree  with my portrayal of the first 20 years of fox   news where i say it was conservative but not  usually conspiratorial and and i would also add   to that look glenn beck and others were pretty uh  outrageous and extreme and conspiratorial in the   pre-trump year so i i don't mean to totally gloss  over some of the um the the nuttiness that was   airing on fox pre-trump but i do see a distinction  between those years and the trump years partly   because roger ailes was in charge partly because  nobody was as addicted to fox as trump is now   meaning you know bush wasn't hanging on every word  fox said and partly because there weren't these   perverse incentive structures to appeal  to trump in the way that there are now   so because bush wasn't hanging on every word  that bill o'reilly said o'reilly wasn't kind of   trying to program his show for george w bush and  and certainly keith olbermann on msnbc wasn't   programming for barack obama that's uh one of the  key differences now in in the de-evolution of fox   but you know you anticipated my critique which is  um you know that that they they were indulging in   sort of you know vituperative white grievance  politics all throughout the obama era they did   kind of carry a lot of water and misinformation  about wmd so to your mind the switch is that the   politicians were more directly plugged into  the you know almost hourly messaging from fox   hosts i think that is one of the big differences  i think another difference is that ales wasn't   there to in some ways control the content look  we're going to talk about ales and we're going   to we're going to acknowledge that he was a a  sexual predator and a person who abused his power   he did however reign in his talent when  necessary for example uh on the subject   of birtherism ales was a birther but  didn't let his talent go full bertha   and you know if we were in a similar dynamic now  and in some cases we are uh you know when we're   going after kamala when they're when they're going  after kamala harris there's no one to to kind of   to kind of try to try to restrain the talent it  doesn't seem like there's anyone who's capable of   doing that i think that's the difference i think  another difference is what's the right wing has   changed what the audience wants has changed um  there's even less interest in news than there   than there might have been 10 years ago and  there are fewer people at fox providing that news do you think that there is or has been an  entity uh kind of equal to fox on the left   in willingness to warp the truth as well as  you know at least some measure of market share   i don't see anything like it i think  this is an example of asymmetric lying   in the way that trump lies a whole lot more than  joe biden or any other democratic politician   frankly trump lies a lot more than most republican  politicians like there's asymmetric lying going on   uh and and that's true in in media as well um  when fox new friends starts its its show every   morning with violence in u.s cities um sometimes  running old video of old riots and old fires   there's there's no outlet on the left running  months old trump gaffes and months old trump lies   every day and leading their hours with with those  examples and hitting the same beat on the same   drum every day uh there's there's actually not it  doesn't seem to be there's an audience for that   performance right there is an audience of that  performance on the right there doesn't seem to be   an audience for that performance on the left or in  the middle or anywhere and else on that spectrum   yeah or if there is it's sort of been confined to  facebook groups and so forth but it doesn't seem   to really penetrate media organizations of it's  not profitable yeah it's not profitable it's not   it's not a big commercial business no one's  going to make a big commercial business out of it   and uh and that doesn't make a huge difference um  and one of the reasons i ask is because in 2009   you know obama called out fox for being a  misinformation machine um pretty poignantly for   obama in particular um but many in the press  and i think to some extent yourself included   kind of frame that as like just an attack  from a president on the media as it's the   same as presidents attacking the media  how does that look in retrospect um   that moment and and i think the sort of way that  that those who would critique fox aggressively   then were were often particularly the political  press seen as either not savvy or partisan in   their curtains right this is just looking  at my story about this from 2009 i wrote   attacking the news media is a time-honored  white house tactic but to an unusual degree   the obama administration's narrowed its sites  to one specific outlet fox news channel calling   it part of the political opposition and you know i  described this relationship with rupert and how he   dealt with david axelrod i said that both sides  see benefits in this feud which was definitely   true at the time i think in 2009 that story holds  up because we had never seen a president like   trump come along and tried to destroy outlets he  didn't like so uh at the time this was an intense   volley now in retrospect what the obama aides  were saying about fox was let's pick a term   it was so gentle it was so uh so polite compared  to what uh the way that trump talks about uh   channels in outlets he doesn't like so you know i  guess we'd have to draw a line right like pre-2016   post 2016 pre-2016 it was disturbing to a lot of  white house reporters and dc professionals to see   um fox being singled out by the administration in  retrospect that was um that was uh the call before   the storm and now they've all been booted to  make way for onn and i think what you're getting   at also is why why is there this defensive fox  when it is a political operation as well as a   news operation um it is a outlet that produces  journalism but is really hostile to journalism   um i had people at fox describe it to me  as a place that's about anti-journalism   right and and an anchor there said to me  you you can produce journalism here but   it what are the incentives you know what  are the what are the motivations to do that   it's easier and more rewarded just to talk about  the news and to defend trump and attack biden   but but i think in 2009 2010 i think in  the obama years to some degree even now   there is this desire to say we are united  an attack on one as an attack on all   and i think that's some of what was going on  in the obama years in the defense of fox to say   you cannot pick off one of us from the  herd aggressive coverage is a good thing   uh news outlets that are pain in your your side  that's that's that's your problem not ours you   know um i think those are understandable uh um  instincts but in the in light of what has happened and in light of sean hannity saying every night  journalism's dead the media is fake don't trust   any of the media mob they hate you they hate us  that rhetoric is so so deeply damaging and if you   don't watch every night you don't get a sense  of how poisonous it is and how powerful it is   so trump is i think uh we would all  agree an extremely lazy president um   but he's put in time studying cable news  and fox in particular what were his insights 2011 he gets a weekly call-in show on fox  and friends and i think that was ultimately   more important to his election victory than the  apprentice because the apprentice did set him up   as a businessman and portrayed him to viewers  as a really successful billionaire businessman   contrary to what we know but fox and friends  taught him about the gop taught him about what   fox's priorities were which are you know there  is a distinction between gop priorities and   fox priorities but they often overlap it taught  them about what fox viewers want how they react   what they crave what they like to hear you know  i think of it as almost a job interview i don't   think i called it that in the book but you call in  once a week you asked a bunch of questions about   the stories fox is really hot on and you have to  figure out ways to answer and uh in retrospect it   was a bit of a job interview it introduced  him to fox and to gop voters in a way that   other candidates didn't have um yes ben carson a  couple others were fox commentators so they had   similar connections but he was calling in in this  way that made him seem so important he was only   on the phone he was usually on the phone even  though he was like you know a few blocks away   in trump tower and he could have walked over  he's on the phone he seems busy and important   and hard to reach powerful mysterious you know  i don't think any of this was that intentional   by trump he just you know he wanted publicity  and air time but the result of it is very clear   and of course once he enters the race  uh said you can't can't call in anymore   the segment's over but then he starts to call in  as a as a candidate right now he's a newsmaker   now the segments are actually the now he's now  he's news and he's calling him even more often um   and by then he knows what fox wants i i there was  this great moment on the day that trump entered   the race where greg gutfeld one of these fox you  know comedian types he says wow trump's speech   he did the fives run down he did our shows run  down he did all the topics that we do every day   and and that was the early sign right there that  he that trump was the fox news candidate and and   would become the fox news president i might jump  up and down to turn the lights on is it okay   like wave my arms wildly and see  if i can turn the sensors on okay   it's gonna be it's gonna look kind of kooky but  uh sorry go ahead um do you at that point when he   was starting to call into fox and friends had  fox itself already become such an insular uh   audience base like you you refer to it as people  who see it as the home team they don't watch other   television news they don't really get their news  much from anything else maybe some talk radio   um so in this how did trump graft himself onto  that audience like which came first the cult of   trump or the cult of fox i guess i think the fox  base was there first yeah the fox base is there   first and then it becomes the trump base with  with with enormous amounts of overlap and not   much difference in between but i would say  there are different kinds of fox viewers in   the same way there are different kind of trump  rally goers i remember going to one of trump's   rallies in north carolina in 2018 and noticing  the difference between the hugh you know the true   uh loyalists who are in the front row they are  singing his songs you know they are they are   rock star groupies and then you've got folks  in the back sitting up in the bleachers who   might leave early kind of skeptical they want  to see the show but they're not they're not   they're not gonna get they're not gonna they're  not gonna go in a trump boat parade right   and i think there is a distinction in fox  as well different kinds of viewers how loyal   they are both to fox and to trump some who are  holding their nose with regards to the hateful   tweets and the racist rhetoric others who are  absolutely all in who are watching fox all day you know when a news anchor like shep smith  who left or some of the news anchors who are   still there when those news anchors um point out  trump's lies or call out the indecency even gently   then they start sending hate mail and hate tweets  to the fox anchors you know so you get that that   really loyal base those are the front row uh  folks at the rallies my question adjacent to that   before i which is part of the evolution of  tv news and maybe german broadly uh analyst   panels instead of reporting um you know a kind  of premium on opinion and fights rather than   uh reported segments or morses and so i i wonder  what about just fox it's a no that's that way   right and i think this is true you're right it's  not just about fox it's a broader phenomenon   television i think a lot of the change we've seen  in television news uh from reporting to talking   about the news talking about the reporting i  i believe that's largely been driven by the   internet and by smartphones because when you have  every headline on your phone you have access to   every bit of information at all times i think it  forces television producers to think differently   and produce differently and not produce a headline  newshour but instead to go deep on a few stories   especially politics because there's an obsession  with politics and the country is so polarized so i   view it as a reaction to the internet into phones  you know and this is a the famous example of cnn   is the missing airline in 2014 and cnn's  choice to go all in almost 24 7 covering   the missing airliner to me in retrospect that  was really a reaction to these market forces   that's moved all the news onto the internet  and made tv have to to seek a different   model but you know there are outlets that are  trying a kind of more old-fashioned headline   service news nation is a prime time show that  just launched on wgn america on cable it's a   you know three it's a multi-hour uh newscast  the whole pitch for this newscast is just the   news no opinion so that's going to be an  interesting test in the marketplace to see   how many folks want that versus a more point of  view driven more commentator driven point of view   version you know i've been covering fox 16 years  so i started in 2004 with a blog called tv newser   where i was just obsessively tracking cnn fox  msnbc and uh and the cable news wars it was an   innocent time compared to what we're experiencing  now uh where um you know these networks were   um they were powerful the rate fox's ratings  were high but not as high as they are now and   content wasn't i think as conspiratorial uh  so i've been starting covering fox since then   and in the trump years what was starting to be  different to me and my conversations with sources   you know lower level sources higher level sources  anchors production assistants everyone in between   was this growing sense of alarm about the  network's content this growing sense of the people   saying things like the network has gone off the  rails i knew when i joined it had a conservative   bent but we were much more reality based uh  10 years ago or five years ago than we are now   and this was clear enough to me by mid-2018 into  2019 that there was a bigger story here um you   know i think ultimately what compelled  me to write the book was this sense of   all these sources inside fox saying this place  something's gone wrong we've become way too trumpy   uh the incentives are all wrong they  are to misinform instead of in form   and uh i know some people would say they don't  have sympathy for those uh staffers they should   leave and indeed some have i quote a researcher  in the book named sean graff who reached out to   me when he was still working at fox in new york  he spoke to me on the record which is certainly   a risk for his job and he said fox's allegiance to  president trump is a puts our democracy at risk um   he ultimately did leave and now he's working for  another network but others stay they think they   can make the content better than they can make a  place better and that dynamic is something that   i think is really interesting about you know can  fox be improved can the content be improved can   the quality be improved so that um people aren't  being fed resentment news and grievance politics   all the time now of course the counter to that and  i'll go back to you claire i think your back up is   that's what the audience wants the audience  doesn't want news and wants pro-trump propaganda   and the ratings show that viewers turn the  channel when the news comes on and they   turn it back to fox when the opinion comes on  claire can you hear me i can certainly hear you   yes thank you sounds much better answering  my question filling in yeah i mean so they   they do say that um is there any evidence that  these folks who are staying there particularly   now that some of the sort of biggest names like  shep smith who were in that more sort of straight   news category yeah that those who remain are doing  anything and providing a fig leaf i mean there was   a really interesting example last week where a  very good reporter on national security issues um   confirmed um a big story about trump you know  calling the troops losers and slackers and um   and you may have made it on the air in other  programs but it mostly made it on the air   because pete mentioned it when he appeared um  in an opinion show yeah um so even though her   reporting confirmed that story if they're  not airing it what difference does it make   i think cnn might have talked about her reporting  more than fox talked about her reporting   and that's at the heart of the problem there's  nobody in a position of leadership at fox who says   our reporter got a great tip she confirmed  a really important piece of information   this is the priority now she's gonna be on at  three and at five and it's seven and at nine   instead these shows are like fiefdoms  and the producers and the stars   they want to please this trump loving audience it  is why and i hate to say this word but this this   word came up repeatedly in the reporting from  sources at fox who talk about it like a cult   in the same way that you've got critics of  trump who say trump supports like a cult   you have folks at fox who feel that that word  applies and so in that environment jennifer   griffin's reporting is something to be feared as  opposed to uh reported and shared and spread it is   something to be rejected and that is largely what  happened to fox uh trump's denial was taken more   seriously um twenty thousand misleading statements  later than than their own reporters uh information   and that is incredibly demoralizing for the  reporters inside fox it is why some of them leave   like shep smith and a number of others have fled  others say they look for other jobs and they can't   really find them and that's a tough situation  when you don't feel like you have options   but this is a dynamic that i fear will only get  more intense in the final weeks of the campaign   when they have left have they been replaced  by um journalists who have standards and are   uh trying to report the news or is that just  sort of smoothed over and made way for more   opinion or like less vibrant reporting well  let's take 3 p.m as an example 3 p.m eastern   time noon pacific is the shep smith's time slot  uh shep was like uh the sorest of sore thumbs   pointing out uh lies and misinformation that we're  spreading on fox so he would try to correct tucker   carlson he would try to correct sean hannity to  limited a veil because a lot of viewers didn't   like that and didn't like him but when he left  last october he was replaced by bill hemmer bill   is as one of the sources in hoax says he's a don't  rock the boat type of news man well if any time in   history of our life of our living history required  some boat rocking this is the time to rock the   boat especially when you're on fox and you have  the president's ear and you're influencing the   trump audience but no he's a don't rock the boat  guy uh he's not doing the kind of fact checks that   uh shep was doing so in that way the 3pm hour the  noon hours of pacific time became trumpier it it's   another example of that move toward these perverse  incentives which are not to report the news   fearlessly but to fear the news and for say chris  wallace or bear they they you report that they   view it much like gop senators who say  they don't read the tweets they like   claim they don't watch the other shows they  just how does that square with just the   existing at that network and in the larger  media ecosystem yeah you know i think chris   wallace is the exception to the rule there's a  couple other exceptions to the rule but the rule   is very strict and very clear and the fact there  are a couple exceptions just supports it further   um you know he he has a lot of autonomy he's on  once a week sunday morning on fox broadcast and   then riered on fox news so he's a man with an  island and nobody else really has that island   um in fact anchors at fox said to me things like  you know we don't have any power we don't feel we   have power to fact-check trump um we we feel like  we're being squeezed out by propaganda this is um   a subject of immense frustration there because you  know you and i may disagree on this but i think   there should be a vibrant healthy ecosystem for  right leaning news like i think there should be   absolutely no beat reporters who are covering the  stories from a conservative perspective we need   more reporting in the world not less but that's  not what fox is doing right what they're doing   is they're shouting down the rest of the news uh  you've got greg gutfeld on air tonight saying um   this story this bombshell from bob woodward it's  not a bombshell it's a booger right so he's just   resorting to childish insults and name calling  and silly rhetoric right um in some ways people   like hannity they're not newsmen they're stop the  newsmen so the the model that i'm saying we should   have we have a healthy diverse media ecosystem  lots of reporting from lots of points of views   we're not getting that reporting from fox we're  getting more and more propaganda so you you say   in the book that after ales left and then later  died that you know rupert murdoch stepped in for   a while to to run the show but then after a while  when these you know former deputies of ales kind   of took over things um murdoch's themselves  step back the hosts gain the upper hand and   essentially the inmates are running the asylum  like nobody can tell hannity what to do or not do   he he tapes the show for impeachment  night which is you know it's remarkable   um and and i'm curious what your analysis of  why the murdochs either can't or won't or don't   step in is there just nothing in it for them  it's minting them money so what do they care that is essentially the explanation  i was given several times   people would say it a little more generally  they would say things like well lachlan murdoch   he's a soccer dad at heart he doesn't  care that much about fox news you know   he's not a religious fox news viewer he cares  about the business he cares about making deals   he wants to he wants to grow the empire and go off  and buy startups that's great lachlan go do that   make sure someone's watching the channel 24  hours a day so they don't hurt the viewers   right um go do what you got to do make sure  the channel is okay first he was trying to do   a deal for a service called tubi in february and  march that was his priority when the pandemic was   um was uh you know when this disease was silently  spreading in the u.s and we didn't know it because   we didn't have tests and uh you know they canceled  rupert murray's birthday party in march because   they knew it wasn't a good idea so they were  taking these kind of precautionary measures   personally um but not making sure that john hannah  didn't call it a hoax on t on tv now of course he   said hoax he meant the democrats are committing a  hoax they're they're too obsessed with the virus   right they're politicizing this they're trying  to hurt trump that was what he said so they were   talking about on fox like it was a political  crisis when in fact it was a medical crisis and   there hasn't been accountability for that and  there never will be the truth is there never   will be at fox um the the murdochs are never gonna  come out and express regret or something like that   um but at the end of the day it is about that  profit machine it is about that um focus on the   bottom line uh instead of the content and the  editorial that that came through loud and clear   in my interviews and i'll tell you the way it  comes through the way it's presented as a positive   right because there is this is a little bit of a  spin to this isn't it that is interesting the the   pro-murdoch spent just for what it's worth is we  give our stars autonomy we give our talent freedom   they are free they have freedom of speech you  know they they they it is their show right they   they have control you know that's we love hearing  that i'm a tv host i i got autonomy i'm happy to   have autonomy um the difference is when i'm going  to go on the air and say something that i know is   um that you know that my ruffle feathers i have  my producer read it first right i have my wife   read it first i might have an executive reader  first not because they're going to censor it   and actually they're not going to not going to  soften it oftentimes the feedback is to make it   even stronger and really really tell the truth  right but that doesn't seem to happen at fox   those checks and balances don't seem to exist you  say there's essentially no standards and practices   department of fox which for people who don't know  um as much as as you about tv news is essentially   you know editors lawyers and fact checkers  designed to to be a team to make things   bulletproof um for legal reasons as well as  just ethics so how do they avoid getting sued that's interesting in the seth rich case  there there is litigation ongoing uh   fox has won some of those um uh battles in court  i think i think they've lost others uh rolling   stone had a great piece on this recently  that i'd recommend on the seth rich case   um yeah it's an interesting question  there was a case in washington state   that attempted to litigate on the coronavirus  pandemic downplaying and was swiftly thrown   out um i think that's a credit to fox's lawyers  more than anything else uh high priced lawyers   um that's an interesting question i haven't  thought that full of through fully um the you   know the lack of checks and balances incentives  and practices is a big deal though and i tried to   really focus on that in hoax because i don't think  it's well known outside fox or outside media world   circles when i have a story it's going to go a  sensitive story or something anonymously sourced   it's going to go through a process in the same way  that you do with your staff at mother jones at fox   if you want to have a process you can but it's not  enforced it's not a it's not a company-wide thing   on brett bear's show there is a little bit of a  process but that's just his choice um to have that   there's not that same top-down sort of  determination to have vetting and quality control   there seems to be less of this now but i i still  wonder why political um operatives of either party   are put on analyst panels um along with  journalists and and other experts i mean we   know what they're gonna say like what's what's the  point like i don't need to you know i know what   jeffrey lord or kelly mckinnon or donna brazile  is going to say like what what what is what is the   point of that i think that's a fair criticism and  i know i've been guilty of it myself in the past   and i agree with you there's less of it now partly  because of the soul-searching we're talking about   and and frankly constructive criticism helps  a lot and is heard and is taken seriously   um i think thankfully we're moving  away from this food fight approach   uh was you know on multiple channels there's  less of this left right you guys go fight for   five minutes sort of format partly because the  stakes are so high and the lies are so suffocating   um but i i you know in in dare i say in defense  of kaylee mcinnani in defense of kaylee mcinning   when i would have her on as a panelist in  2016 i do think that she was able to reflect   some of what trump world was thinking some of  how stories were perceived by trump supporters   and i do see there's value in that but i think the  the greater value would be just to go interview   supporters right uh go and do the reporting  go and do the field work and while we're at   it while we're interviewing trump supporters  let's make sure we interview lots of democrats   and well and let's make sure we interview lots  of non-voters because i think that's the even   more interesting part of the story you know if  i could replace half the trump voter into diner   stories with stories about non-voters then i  think we're going to get somewhere interesting   so we all saw that very mussolini kimberly  guilfoyle speech at the gop convention um you know   since you're talking to a largely californian  audience she has a special fascination for us   used to be married to governor gavin newsom what  what do you think her tenure at fox tells us about   fox i mean obviously tells us something about  the revolving door to the trump world but you   you had some really interesting observations  about her role at the network particularly in   the aftermath of ayles's um scandal right look  day one trump comes on the escalator and she   says it was like the lego movie the theme was  everything is awesome i really felt so excited   i felt richer just listening to him like she was  on board the trump train before left the station   at the same time i had a fox insider who knows  kim really well say to me she's an avatar if msnbc   offered her a better gig with more money she'd  be a raging liberal now she claims she's always   been a registered republican but i think there's  that dynamic in in cable news especially at fox   where uh it feels like these folks are only  cheering for the side they're cheering on uh for   for for financial reasons or personal uh fame and  and popularity reasons um but she clearly saw uh   she made a series of calculations one was to be  pro-trump another was to be pro ales in the summer   of 2016 when ales was sued by gretchen carlson  and that was a terrible bet that she made um i   think it's pretty clear what the calculus was if  she was the head of team roger she'd get rewarded   with a promotion a new show and her time slot of  her own she wouldn't be stuck on some panel with   four other people she'd have her own show she'd  be a bigger star um she went around fox saying   things like dana parents she's dead she won't she  won't support uh rodriguez you can have her seat   on the five like she went around trying to make  deals with people uh in in that way um and that   now again that speaks to that kind of professional  uh aspiration that attempt to get ahead clearly it   backfired uh once sales was forced out her star  faded fast uh fox waited a while to uh to to   until her contract ran out for her and to have  her leave but eventually had her leave and uh   and now you know now she's on youtube right doing  trump 2020 web videos that almost no one watches   um i think these videos they deserve a little bit  of attention because they they can kind of show us   what the what the goal what the what the attempt  is by the trump campaign to create their own media   but it's not not working very well and i had a  fox insider say to me you know when tom junior   is on fox she sometimes comes with him and we  all kind of think it's a little desperate you   know that she wants to get back in the building  so i guess the point here is there's no love lost   between kimberly guilfoyle and the folks at fox  are fox hosts starting to play footsie with qnon they are and that's one of the scariest things  that's happened in recent recent weeks in recent   months jesse waters for example was on the air  and i want to get the direct quote because it's   it's worse than i could paraphrase um you know he  basically went on and said you know yeah you know   queueing on they've had some crazy stuff and he  was referring to pizzagate for example but he said   q can do some crazy stuff with the pizza stuff  and the wayfarer stuff but they've also uncovered   a lot of great stuff when it comes to epstein  when it comes to the deep state this happened   on saturday night and i requested a comment from  fox right away and fox didn't say anything all   day sunday then finally sunday night they put  out a statement from jesse where he said um i   don't support i don't believe in q anon my comment  should not be mistaken for giving credence to this   fringe platform well when you're talking about  on fox it's not a fringe platform anymore when   president trump is retweeting q a means it is not  a fringe platform anymore that's the definition of   mainstream and this will be again another test  for fox leadership can they will they um try to   uh try to sort of make sure that this kind of  toxicity doesn't spread on their own airwaves what happens to fox if trump loses um the business  model at the moment seems completely tied into him   now what do you think i think fox is bigger than  trump at this point and yes he can go off and   try to launch a channel you can go off and have a  twitter fight with somebody if he loses reelection   um but i think foxx is bigger than trump at this  point and it's better to be for fox the business   model is better to be anti-democrat than pro-trump  it's it's better to be the anti-biden channel have   something you're against than have to be for trump  like i mean think about today right you've got   the atlantic article and now you have these these  quotes from the from from bob woodward's book   just a deluge of bad news for the president and  you have to go on and put on a happy face and   tell everybody everything's great and that trump's  going to win reelection that's not an easy job so   simply from a practical standpoint uh being the  anti-biden channel sometimes a maybe a better   that's a more comfortable position for fox to be  in i mean i can see that but it seems like trump's   fans have you know his core fans are so devoted  to him in a way that they they may not abandon   fox but i guess i wonder what you think will hap  them because you know when cults and uh really   um violent sometimes and and sort of distressing  realizations i mean it's it's uncomfortable to put   your whole faith into something that then falls  apart in one way or another well won't won't the   word now we're in kind of hypothetical territory  what what what comes in what does december look   like okay what does february look like but uh  maybe it looks like this biden wins and the   narrative is the deep state won the deep state  took down our guy right one of the things about   fox is they they these prime time stars they  distill really complicated nuanced things into   these talking points into these slogans that are  then um they also they become the way we all talk   about these stories for better or for worse hoax  and deep state you know um you know i think it's   quite likely it'll be just be a deep state plot  this was a deep state plot it'll be interesting   to see how many people accept the results of the  election and believe the results of the election   what i don't think will happen is i don't think  people wake up and say trump who i don't think   there's gonna be that sort of um dismissal of  him running away from him if anything i think   the the core fox viewer will hold trump more  tightly right and turn to trump jr as the future   brian um all the networks particularly cnn  and msnbc i guess have um you know how to   roll with the pandemic and it's forced some big  changes to the way that the shows are produced   um booked um and and some of these seem decidedly  in a studio and almost all the guests in york do   you think is there appetite of the networks  for this to remain once there's vac scene   uh for what for the working from home studios that  sort of thing no i don't know i might have lost it   well the working from home studios for people  who are employed by cnn but yeah i think also   just interviewing people more broadly across  the country right right right right well i i   certainly hope so and i do think this will be a  lasting impact you know i am frustrated today by   the relative lack of national news coverage of  the fires i know there is some great coverage   from national outlets i'm curious to look  at the nightly newscast 6 30 eastern and see   what the order of stories was and how how high  the fires ranked um you know and i think that   one one fringe one silver lining of this  crisis has been that it is easier to pipe   into anybody anywhere you can you can get  folks at home they can come on the webcam   you know they're able to join from anywhere i do  think that's going to have a lasting impact on   tv coverage and hopefully provide more diversity  and more perspective in the coverage so it's not   you have to get to a studio and you have to be in  front of a camera with with makeup and lights on   but that we can reach out to more experts that  are in the field i noticed an announcement earlier   this week by cnn one of our correspondents diane  gallagher who's been in washington she's been   in atlanta she's now going to be our first  ever charlotte north carolina correspondent   so she'll be there with her her husband already is  in charlotte uh i think i'm pretty sure she's from   the carolinas now she'll be back she'll be there  she will be charlotte based and so i you could   envision a model where cnn correspondents who  used to be in 10 cities will soon be in 20 cities   right because they'll be able to be more spread  out and they'll be able to work from home or work   from you know a kind of a small office setup  or a small bureau set up i think that would be   a great benefit and a great improvement uh  so that we can reflect more of what's going   on across the country i'm holding it up and you  can't see me so i'll hold it up i'll hold it up   they're yesterday everywhere um i read it you  did in fact and not only did you read it you   tweeted out your favorite passages so i want to  i want to ask our viewers to do the same thing   i love seeing what stands out to you in the  book what what paragraphs or pages stand out   what surprises you what horrifies you let me know  and for everybody watching if you have questions   for me that we didn't answer today my email  address is b stelter gmail.com just first initial   lastname gmail.com most of all thank you for  your interest and thank you for tuning in you

Channel: Commonwealth Club of California

Views: 50,598

Keywords: CommonwealthClub

Id: TD-js-6c1ok

Length: 55min 8sec (3308 seconds)

Published: Wed Sep 16 2020