When Fox News began to advertise their last debate across social media, there was a particular trend that caught my attention. Instead of what I assumed would be a long thread in a critique of Clinton or of the opposing candidate’s camps, the comment sections were near-uniformly critical of Fox News’ loss of “fairness,” and their failure of having Megyn Kelly as the moderator.
This backlash comes in the wake of Kelly’s confrontation with Trump over his erroneous statements, which these voters saw as a breach in journalistic integrity. Trump, who has previously called Kelly a great moderator and journalist, categorically derided her as being bad at her job. Ignoring, because there is a limit to a number of times things may be said, another example of Trump’s flagrant reversal of past opinions, this event was interesting in the way that it found conservative supporters of Trump suddenly at odds with Fox News.
Yes, where Fox News had supported the then extreme conservatism of Tea Party politicians in 2008 and 2012, they have now lost favor with the "conservative" demographic. What’s more, they have been attacked for their lack of fairness towards the political group the network has long been criticized for skewing facts in favor of. Fox has been a rich source of comedic satire and parody for its obvious conservative biases and now the network that inspired "The Colbert Report” is considered too critical of Donald Trump’s brand of politics. This political camp that feels Megyn Kelly, who yearly decries the liberal war on Christmas, claims that the media has lost all sense of fairness, but what does that mean?
Fox, CNN, ABC and nearly all popular media networks, have always presented themselves as unbiased, steadfastly keeping to the so-called fairness doctrine. What is fairness, though, in the political sphere where people make completely conflicting statements on air?
By the metric used by the likes of CNN, fairness implies an equality between all positions, without regard to facts or evidence. What better example for this than climate change, where those with PhDs in climatology and positions at NASA are presented side by side with creationist pseudo-scientists who cite the Bible as reason enough to disregard the rise in ocean levels as consequential of manmade green house gas emission.
Fairness, by the media’s standard, dictates that both people are given equal time to voice their opinions and the anchor then leaves it to the audience to make up their mind about the matter. Of course, there’s something inherently wrong with that sort of thinking. Presenting all views as equally viable is a false depiction of the world -- people's opinions can be wrong.
What has enabled Tea Party candidates, as well as Trump, is this perceived responsibility of the media to cover their eyes and say, "You decide." With their resources, the media is privy to more information and should be able to employ more astute individuals. With these resources, their responsibility is not to present all opinions as equally plausible, but rather the facts the general population is not aware of. The implication of that responsibility, no matter how offended it may leave conservatives, is that politicians should be challenged on the things they say to get elected.
The voter has every right to support whomever they so choose, but it is not the media’s job to vindicate that individual’s opinions. The Republican debates this race could only be called a farce if they were judged by the amount of factually correct information was presented. Candidates have been able to say whatever they like with impunity. Whom does this benefit?
