Why Fox News isn't really a news network

A conversation with Brian Stelter.

(Brian’s new book)

Brian Stelter and I have a lot in common.

We both came to CNN from big legacy print media outlets. (Brian was at the New York Times; I was at the Washington Post.) At CNN, we were both hybrids — people who talked on TV, yes, but also wrote articles and newsletters and the like. And, Brian and I were also both unceremoniously shown the door by CNN last year.

I was a fan of his work — covering the nexus of media and politics — long before we worked together. When we were at CNN I came to admire Brian not just for the content he created but also for the way he did it — with hard work, transparency and, most importantly, a relentlessly positive attitude.

I came to realize he wasn’t just a really good journalist (I already knew that) but also a really good person, which in my mind counts for even more.

So, when Brian’s new book came out — “Network of Lies: The Epic Saga of Fox News, Donald Trump and the Battle for American Democracy” I immediately picked up a copy.

---

Subscribe to my newsletter today and get 20% off membership for life. Just $4 a month! Or $40 a year!

---

Obviously I knew that Fox had played an outsized role in the conservative mind space for a very long time. And that the network had contributed to the misinformation flying around in the wake of the 2020 election.

But, I had NO idea the extent of it — all of which is minutely described in Brian’s book. (You can read the New York Times’ glowing review of it here.)

I wanted to talk to Brian more about the book — where the idea came from, what he learned that was new to him and just how corrosive Fox is to our national political dialogue among other things.

Our conversation — conducted via email and lightly edited for flow — is below. Make sure to follow Brian on Twitter X and Threads. And check out the weekly “Inside the Hive” podcast he hosts for Vanity Fair.

Chris: Let’s start basic. Where did the idea for the book come? You’ve obviously written extensively about Fox. Why this book now?

Brian: This book needed to be written because the Dominion Voting Systems revelations needed to be put into context and chronological order. Dominion sued Fox for defamation and accessed a treasure trove of internal emails, texts and memos. For the first time in Fox's history, outsiders could see how it worked on the inside.

But the documents were hard to find and even harder to digest. So that's the initial problem I was trying to solve. As I used the documents and depositions to reconstruct the pivotal 2020 election period, I saw patterns and connections that we didn't know about at the time.

For example, when Maria Bartiromo introduced the anti-Dominion conspiracy theory to millions of viewers, including then-President Trump, she read almost word-for-word from a zany and obviously false email from a random Trump fan in Minnesota. By the fan's own admission, parts of the email were "wackadoodle." The emailer claimed to be "internally decapitated;" she described having visions; she said "the Wind tells me I’m a ghost." Bartiromo raced onto TV with the fan's election fraud claims anyway! I covered Bartiromo's conspiratorial behavior in real time, but I had no idea it was this bad. 

Chris: Is it fair to call Fox a “news network” like CNN or MSNBC (or even ABC or CBS)? Why or why not?

Brian: No, because Fox doesn't operate the way CNN or MSNBC or ABC or CBS do. The recent Niagara Falls debacle is a perfect example.

A young reporter at Fox rushed onto the air with claims that the tragic accident at a border crossing was an "attempted terrorist attack." Fox ran with these anonymously-sourced claims for hours. The coverage spooked millions of people and had real-world impacts in Niagara Falls and Buffalo.

Once the claims fell apart, Fox basically blamed the young reporter; the reporter said her sources got it wrong; and the network tried to pretend like this terrible episode never happened.

At a proper news network, there are stringent processes for reporting sensitive and anonymously-sourced information. There are standards and practices departments. There are checks and balances. (You and I know this first-hand from our years at CNN!)

These systems exist in order to protect institutions and individual reporters. Of course the systems aren't perfect; screwups still take place; that's life. But the systems reflect a good faith effort to sort fact from fiction. Fox doesn't have these systems. That's why the "attempted terrorist attack" falsehood happened. 

There are lots of other reasons why Fox is not in the same category as CNN or NBC. Fox spends less time reporting the news and more time complaining about what others are reporting. Its biggest shows are explicit about trying to elect Republicans and defeat Democrats. Its hosts regularly indulge conspiracy theories. Its coverage does a disservice to the viewers who trust it the most, and that's a point I tried to hammer home in “Network of Lies” — if you think Fox is helping the conservative cause, think again.

Chris: You spend a lot of time on Tucker Carlson in the book. Can you explain both his centrality to what they were doing and why, ultimately, he was fired?

Brian: Tucker Carlson was the face of Fox for half a decade. His show, more than any other, epitomized the Trump years: The MAGA movement’s rage, glee, cruelty, contradictions, and denialism, perfectly distilled into a TV show that rarely mentioned Trump at all.

I think Carlson believed he was a better MAGA messenger than the president. Trump the man got in the way of Trump the ideas. Thus by the end of 2020 Carlson was saying, of Trump, "I hate him passionately."

At that time, Carlson was on the same page with Fox patriarch Rupert Murdoch. It's worth recalling early 2021, when Rupert wrote that "we want to make Trump a non person" and Carlson called the outgoing president "elderly and retiring." They both saw a path to a post-Trump GOP, but it wasn't meant to be, in part because Carlson rewrote the reality of the January 6 attack and convinced large swaths of the GOP that Trump was actually a victim of a deep state plot. 

I liken Carlson's ouster to a bad breakup — it wasn't one thing, it was everything. Lachlan Murdoch made a business calculation that Carlson wasn't worth all the headaches anymore. The headaches included ad boycotts, lie-filled broadcasts, hostile behind-the-scenes behavior, incredibly ugly texts, an ex-producer's lawsuit, and more. I wound up putting a bullet-pointed list in the book because there were so many contributing factors.

Chris: In the book, you quote a conservative saying that Rupert Murdoch’s death will “change politics more than Trump’s descent down the escalator.” Can you expand on that sentiment? And do you agree with it?

Brian: It's a provocative thought, to be sure, and I think it's plausible, but far from certain. The person who said it believes that Rupert's son James will try to wrest control of Fox News and drag it to the left, thus destroying one of the right's main media assets.

Maybe James will try to take over; maybe he won't; but I think James' vision for Fox News is center-right and reality-based, not “left” by any definition of the word. And a takeover by James is far from a fait accompli.

Rupert’s recent shift to “chairman emeritus” status was the ultimate signal that he wants Lachlan to stay in charge. To dethrone Lachlan, an insider pointed out to me, “James would have to get two siblings who know their late father’s wishes to completely ignore those wishes.” Cue the "Succession" theme music. 

Chris: Finish this sentence: In a single word (or a few), the best way to explain Fox News’ role in the conservative ecosystem is _____________.” Now, explain.

Brian: “A beating heart that's in need of surgery.”

Fox pumps blood throughout the body of the American right. But the patient is sick and getting sicker. As a result, we're all suffering.