Another Successful 'Foxtober' Midterm Election is Under Way
How "The ISIS of biological agents?" led to the fall of Roe v. Wade
A few weeks back, I chatted with The Recount’s Steve Morris about the tried and true Fox News strategy of rallying around something to freak out over as the midterms approach. In 2014, it was Ebola. In 2018, it was migrant caravans. In 2022, it’s crime. Here’s that video clip:
Right now you may be saying, “Hey! That’s Fox News for you! Of course they’re going to generate some rage bait for their audiences. What else is new!?” But the issue in 2014 and 2018 (and is currently doing in 2022) had less to do with what Fox decided to air (because, as the hypothetical person reading this has already said, this is to be expected from Fox), and more with how eagerly other mainstream media outlets take cues from Fox’s coverage. (See also: this great video from 5 years ago that explains exactly how this happens.)
For instance, here’s a chart (via my former employers over at Media Matters) that shows how much prime time coverage Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC devoted to Ebola in the weeks leading up to and following the 2014 midterm elections:
Notice how in the weeks leading up to the election Ebola was dominating the news? And notice how quickly Ebola disappeared from the headlines after election day (11/4/14)? That’s not some sort of wild coincidence. Fox News and other right-wing media outlets decided that screaming about Ebola was the GOP’s best shot to retake the Senate, and covered the story in a way meant to suggest that anyone who wasn’t also screaming about it was trying to protect Democrats from negative coverage. Mainstream media outlets, afraid of being hit with accusations of “liberal bias,” followed Fox’s lead (and in the case of CNN, went absolutely wild with it, even inviting the author of the fictional movie Outbreak to comment on it).
In 2018, the big story was the “migrant caravan.” Sure, the caravan, like Ebola, was real; it’s just that, again, like Ebola, which killed a total of two (2) Americans, it wasn’t legitimately newsworthy. Still, Fox was able to successfully goad CNN and MSNBC into devoting significant time and energy into covering the topic. And, just like with Ebola, coverage of the “migrant caravan” essentially disappeared the second the election was over. Funny how that works!
This year, it’s a focus on crime and inflation that Fox News is trying to push — mostly crime. Once again, CNN and MSNBC are following the leader.
The Washington Post has a chart showing how coverage of crime has absolutely exploded on cable news in recent months. Is crime up compared to earlier this year? No, not any more than the increase that had already been happening. And is it, as right-wing media outlets and politicians like to claim, taking place mostly in “Democrat-run cities” and blue states? No, but that reality doesn’t seem to matter (during a recent Oklahoma gubernatorial debate, Democratic candidate Joy Hofmeister accurately noted that “the rates of violent crime in Oklahoma are higher under [Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt’s] watch than New York and California" — and Stitt responded by laughing, even though Hofmeister was factually correct).
If reality mattered, every news outlet on the planet probably wouldn’t have fallen for the “oh no! crime!” line. And, again, if reality mattered, Republicans probably wouldn’t want this to be an election about crime, as I just noted, the crime rates are actually higher in “red” states. But the reality, sadly, doesn’t matter. The GOP will play this to their advantage.
Good analysis from Philip Bump here:
Through July and August, all three networks were mentioning crime about as much as they did in the first half of the year. In late September, though, mentions on Fox News began to soar. In the middle of October, mentions began to rise on CNN and MSNBC, too, in part as a reflection of the increased discussion of crime on the campaign trail.
So now we have a point of time to look at here: What was it in late September that triggered Fox News to start talking about crime so much?
The increase has been stark even in absolute terms. Here’s the extent to which Fox News has been mentioning crime and gas or fuel each week. (These are averages of the number of 15-second blocks in a day during which the term appears in closed-captioning.) From the spring through the summer, crime didn’t come up much. Mentions of “gas” and “fuel” were much more common. Then gas prices peaked and mentions fell. A few weeks later, mentions of both crime and gas increased, but only mentions of crime have kept rising.
And another telling chart from Bump’s piece:
As gas prices decreased, Fox stopped talking about them. As Democrats started to make some real gains on the generic ballot, Fox started ramping up its coverage of crime (which, of course, has mostly been an attempt to frame it as a “Democrat” issue even though it’s not as though Republicans have actual answers or policy proposals that would address this issue — just as Republicans don’t actually have proposals that would affect inflation aside from going “Inflation! It’s bad! Vote for Republicans!”).
When Fox does stuff like this, which is a transparent attempt to help Republicans win elections, it becomes that much more necessary for CNN and MSNBC to actively resist the urge to follow Fox’s footsteps. If Fox News is going to put its thumb on the scale to try to help Republicans, with their coverage taking up topics specifically because those topics are advantageous to Republicans, other outlets that follow suit aren’t simply fighting the appearance of “liberal bias,” but are actively participating in Fox’s attempt to throw the election to Republicans.
Once again, we are witnessing a news media that refuses to treat the act of informing the public as a core part of its mission. Rather than spending time telling us what it would mean for policy if a race goes one way or another, news organizations are busy chasing the narrative being set by Fox News, playing the role of horse race announcer, and again, failing the public.
The 2014 midterms played a huge role in determining the future of the country. Huge.
Because Republicans retook the Senate in the 2014 midterms, Mitch McConnell was able to block a whole bunch of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees. Yes, yes, we know about the Merrick Garland nomination being blocked, but it’s much deeper than that.
In January 2016, Obama nominated Myra Selby to a spot on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Selby was a former justice on Indiana’s state Supreme Court, and there really wasn’t a great reason to delay confirming her to this new position — aside from the fact that it was Obama who was nominating her. There was nothing particularly controversial in her history. Republicans blocked her nomination, leaving the seat open.
In May 2017, President Donald Trump nominated a law professor with zero judicial experience to fill the seat that would have otherwise been filled by Selby. Her name was Amy Coney Barrett. The trajectory of the country (and the world, for that matter) was determined in large part by the outcome of those 2014 midterms.
I sure hope that the people who decided to spend that election breathlessly scaremongering about Ebola (see: this CNN graphic asking if Ebola was “the ISIS of biological agents”) can connect the dots between their terrible coverage and the fact that abortion is no longer considered a right in the U.S. Sadly, I don’t think they care all that much. And if they do, it might just be that this is the outcome they and the people who sign their paychecks want.
Are we doomed? I sure hope not.
Do you mind if I make a screenshot of one paragraph and share it out? This one:
Once again, we are witnessing a news media that refuses to treat the act of informing the public as a core part of its mission. Rather than spending time telling us what it would mean for policy if a race goes one way or another, news organizations are busy chasing the narrative being set by Fox News, playing the role of horse race announcer, and again, failing the public.
Terrific connection made between the outcome of 2014 and the Supreme Court.