Fox in the Hen House

How to miss an opportunity

You’ve probably heard the saying, “That’s the fox guarding the hen house.” It refers to the problem inherent in asking someone or something to guard a valuable that it naturally wants to take. Nature will prevail. The fox will eat the eggs.

Or the saying—alarm, rather—“The fox is in the hen house!” This is a call to defend your goods from a marauder. But what if the fox is in its own hen house?

---

The Rise of Fox News

NEW YORK (GLOB) — October 7, 1996, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes launched Fox News and aggressively positioned it as “Fair and Balanced”. This was a direct challenge to CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC, which were viewed as pushing a left bias in their reporting. Doubling down on this claim to being fair and balanced, they had another tag line, ”We Report, You Decide.” The implication being, they simply reported the news with no bias.

As a self-aware effort to support this position, they brought in personalities such as Juan Williams and Geraldo Rivera, generally viewed as left-leaning. And the debate-style show, Hannity & Colmes, paired conservative Sean Hannity with liberal Alan Colmes.

Fox also focused heavily on the “fly-over” states and conservative viewpoints which it felt were underrepresented in the left-leaning media. Roger Ailes structured the network like a political campaign rather than a traditional newsroom, and the tone was combative and populist. And we cannot forget the framing of Brit Hume and Bill O’Reilly as straight shooters who purported to deliver the news, without a liberal or elitist filter.

Fox benefited from its coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal which caused a surge in conservative viewership. And then in the 2000 election they were the first network to call the election in favor of Bush over Gore, further enhancing their reputation among conservative voters. Then came their coverage of 9/11 and the War on Terror.

By 2002 Fox surpassed CNN as the most-watched news network.

---

The Shift Toward Ideological Counterpunching

In 2017, Fox quietly retired the “Fair and Balanced” moniker.¹ While I will accept at face value the purported reason for dropping that tagline, I will note that it’s hard, to be fair and balanced when what was really going on is counter-balance. In reality the tagline was more marketing than principle.

That said, it’s worth acknowledging that Fox’s evolution into a full-throated ideological counterweight didn’t happen overnight. Early on, the network made a genuine effort to present itself as a debate forum, pairing strong conservative voices with left-leaning figures like Alan Colmes and Juan Williams. Hannity & Colmes was explicitly designed to showcase both perspectives, and anchors like Brit Hume maintained a level of traditional journalistic credibility. Even into the 2010s, figures like Chris Wallace were respected for tough, even-handed interviews.

But over time, as ratings increasingly rewarded outrage and partisanship, the network leaned harder into opinion-based programming. The shift was gradual, perhaps even inevitable, but by the time the “Fair and Balanced” slogan was retired in 2017, it was clear that Fox had fully embraced its role as a conservative counterpunch, rather than a neutral arbiter of news.

---

Fox & Friends: The Smug Superiority of Infotainment

Which brings us to today.

Every morning, my wife has Alexa play Fox News. That means Fox & Friends is on; lighthearted fare with a “cool kids in the cafeteria” vibe as they poke fun at anyone outside their circle.

If you are not in on the joke, well, you weren’t invited. My take on this show? They don’t care if they widen the divide between those on the left and the right. They are conducting themselves with a certain smug superiority at the expense of any actual journalism.

Fox & Friends isn’t really a news show. It’s infotainment. It ranks high on the Snarkometer, and I’m sure the hosts feel they’re winning. But I wonder. Is snark news? Or is it ultimately tiresome?

---

Fox’s Own Stated Principles

Fox Corporation’s Guiding Principles, in part, assert:

FOX is uncompromisingly committed to being neutral arbiters of timely news, and we consider journalistic independence and editorial integrity to be sacrosanct.

I’m not sure where snark fits in there. Does anyone really view snark as journalism?

For reference, I ripped this definition of snark from the interwebs:

Definition of Snark

Snark is a form of witty, biting, and often sarcastic humor used to mock or criticize. It typically combines sarcasm, cynicism, and playfulness, but can range from lighthearted teasing to outright condescension. Snark is characterized by:

• A tone of superiority – The speaker assumes an amused or dismissive stance toward the subject.

• Mocking or sardonic humor – Often using exaggeration or irony to make a point.

• Dismissiveness rather than substantive critique – It aims more to entertain or belittle than to engage in deep analysis.

Fox & Friends offers frequent mockery of political opponents,i.e., anyone on the left, casual smug banter among hosts, rather than hard-hitting analysis, and simplified dismissive takes on complex issues, e.g. during the early stages of the pandemic, co-host Ainsley Earhardt suggested it was the "safest time to fly" due to empty terminals, trivializing the severity of the situation. ​en.wikipedia.org

That does not sound to me like uncompromising commitment to being neutral arbiters of timely news.

---

Where is the Actual News?

I suppose the counterargument is that Fox & Friends is primarily entertainment. But, with Gutfeld! and The Five as the other highly rated programs, does Fox provide news that is committed to being neutral?

On which program?

At this point, there is very little hard news on Fox. There is Fox News Sunday, with Shannon Bream. It was previously hosted by Chris Wallace, who left for CNN. What does it say that Chris Wallace literally moved to the other side? I mean, he went to CNN!²

And there is Special Report with Bret Baier, a more serious show that looks and feels like journalism. Other than that, Fox is dominated by opinion-based programming made up of infotainment, and entertainment-style commentary.

---

The Ironic Risk

Fox News didn’t become the dominant cable news network simply by being the loudest voice in the conservative space. It earned credibility by at least maintaining the pretense of debate, even if the matchups weren’t always fair. Shows like Hannity & Colmes and the presence of left-leaning figures like Juan Williams gave the network a veneer of balance that made it harder to dismiss outright.

That was instrumental in dethroning CNN and securing Fox’s place as the top-rated news network. But here’s the irony: what made them dominant is exactly what they are abandoning. Some might argue that Fox is simply responding to audience demand. One could argue that CNN and MSNBC are doing the same. But the risk for Fox is that by leaning too far into ideology, it may lose the credibility that built its brand in the first place.

Fox should take note: Special Report with Bret Baier pulls similar ratings to Fox & Friends.

It’s not hard to imagine a world where Fox’s decline mirrors that of the networks it once challenged. I think snark is ultimately exhausting and the cool-kid vibe unsustainable. How long before it becomes self-parody?

The Fox is in its own hen house. Doing what foxes do. Can they self-correct? Do they want to?

1. Fox News retired its "Fair and Balanced" tagline in 2017, a slogan closely associated with its founder, Roger Ailes. After Ailes' departure amid sexual harassment allegations, the network sought to distance itself from his legacy and adopted "Most Watched. Most Trusted." as its new slogan. ​Wikipediayourislandnews.com+4Wikipedia+4yahoo.com+4

2. Wallace had grown uncomfortable with Fox News' opinion hosts, particularly regarding their coverage of the January 6 Capitol attack and the 2020 presidential election outcome. He found the work environment increasingly "unsustainable" after the 2020 election. ​CNN+7en.wikipedia.org+7People+7apnews.com