Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

The Dominion Lawsuit Revealed Why Fox News Peddles Climate Nonsense

Tucker Carlson knows exactly what his audience wants him to say.

•
The Fox News logo.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

If we learned anything about Fox News over the last few months, it’s that the conservative network relentlessly tells its viewers exactly what they want to hear.

Fox on Tuesday settled a defamation suit with Dominion Voting Systems, agreeing to pay a hefty $787.5 million for airing falsehoods about the company’s voting machines in the weeks following the 2020 election. We’re not going to get a trial. It’s hard not to feel a little let down by the news: After all, we’ve been deprived of the spectacle of Fox executive chair Rupert Murdoch and network stars like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity taking the stand to testify — under oath — about what they knew and when they knew it.

Still, the settlement happened after Dominion attorneys were able to uncover reams of embarrassing testimony about the workings at Fox News — depositions, texts, and emails letting us know that while network personalities largely went along with Donald Trump’s false claims of a stolen election while they were on the air, behind the scenes they knew it was all nonsense.

Why did they then peddle the nonsense? Because that’s what the audience wanted.

With Trump on the ropes in November and December of 2020, the network’s executives and stars worried about losing their audience to right-wing competitors like Newsmax and OANN that assured viewers that Trump really did win the election. Murdoch grumbled about CNN’s superior ratings. Tucker Carlson fretted about the company’s stock price, and tried to get a Fox News reporter fired after she fact-checked Trump’s bogus claims. He even said he hates Trump “passionately.”

The truth didn’t matter. What mattered was keeping hold of viewers, at any cost.

At a $787.5 million cost, as it turns out.

“It’s remarkable how weak ratings make good journalists do bad things,” one Fox News exec reportedly lamented.

The election wasn’t a one-off for this viewer-obsessed approach. The New York Times last year reported that Carlson, in particular, uses minute-by-minute ratings to shape the content and tone of his nightly primetime show — and chooses to give his audience exactly what it wants. “He is going to double down on the white nationalism because the minute-by-minutes show that the audience eats it up,” a former Fox News employee told the newspaper.

What does all of this have to do with climate change, you may ask?

Simple. If Fox News gives its viewers what they want, at any cost, then it’s pretty clear that what Fox News viewers want is news telling them that that climate scientists are power-mad, that climate solutions are tyranny, that climate activists hate nature, that climate change is a Chinese hoax.

Here is Carlson in February, decrying climate science as a screwball religion:

As church attendance and self-identified religious faith have fallen off a cliff in this country, the cult of climate has grown even stronger. Now, even the president United States is warning that the world is ending. Unless we pass the Green New Deal and legalize abortion 'til the moment of birth, Joe Biden says climate change will destroy the world.

Here he is in March, saying climate activists actually hate nature and just want control:

There is the climate change agenda and the climate change agenda is the single most ambitious effort to remake human civilization in all recorded history, and it's coming. … So, the question is, why are we still being bullied by these people? It has nothing to do with saving the Earth. They hate the Earth. They hate nature. It's about controlling us, and maybe we should recognize that.

And again a week later, calling climate change a Trojan horse for Beijing:

There are still people in this country, for example, who seem to believe that the so-called climate agenda is actually about the climate or about the environment of the Earth or something, and not a coordinated effort by the government of China to hobble the U.S and the West and take its place as the leader of the world, which of course is exactly what's going on.

It’s not just Tucker. Just last week, Fox News host Greg Gutfield claimed that a warming climate is going to make people’s lives better. And if you’re looking for any mention of the climate on sister network Fox Weather, well, you can forget it.

All too often, we talk about our modern misinformation crisis as a supply problem — there’s simply too much B.S. being produced for Americans to know what’s real or not. But very frequently it’s a demand problem. A lot of people want to hear the nonsense. If you don’t give it to them, they’ll simply switch channels to watch somebody who does.

At this moment, I’m not sure we can expect a different approach from Fox News, no matter how large a penalty it is paying for the election lies. After the settlement was announced on Tuesday, the network released a statement praising the “amicable” resolution to the case as a reflection of Fox’s “commitment to the highest journalistic standards.”

That doesn’t sound very apologetic, or like a change in the business model is forthcoming.

Unfortunately for the world, the climate can't be defamed. We're not likely to get a lawsuit that reveals that Fox News hosts secretly believe in global warming and drive Priuses behind the scenes. The work of persuading and educating Fox News viewers of the real threat of climate change will take time, but there are some hopeful signs. A recent poll shows one-fifth of Fox viewers trust the network less after the revelations from Dominion’s lawsuit. And surveys suggest younger Republicans are more worried about climate change than their elders — and more amenable to solutions.

For now, though, Fox News viewers pretty clearly want to hear that climate change is a hoax, or something like it. Tuesday’s settlement suggests they'll probably keep getting that message.


Sign up for our newsletter to receive the best of Heatmap in your inbox:

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe to access Heatmap's exclusive climate and energy polling, award-winning journalism, and subscriber-only events. Save $57 on an annual subscription, just $156 $99/year.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
AM Briefing

Pump and Trump

On OpenAI’s pledge, power plant emissions, and Kazakh tungsten

A gas station.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: The polar vortex that keeps air circulating around the North Pole collapsed months ahead of schedule, threatening to send frigid temperatures southward • India’s east coast Andhra Pradesh state is facing down yet another major storm as Severe Cyclone Murasu makes landfall • The catastrophic atmospheric river over the American Southwest has dumped more than 20 trillion gallons of water across Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.


THE TOP FIVE

1. Gas prices hit a record high on the eve of America’s midterm elections

The average price of a gallon of gasoline during President Donald Trump’s second term topped $3.46 as of Monday, a record that exceeds the previous high set under the Biden administration. That’s according to a new analysis by the Financial Times. And that’s just the average across the past 22 months. The average price nationwide on November 2 clocked in at just under $4.17 per gallon. “If modern living boiled down to a price, it’s the price at the pump,” Bob McNally, a former energy advisor to the George W Bush administration and president of consultancy Rapidan Energy, told the newspaper. “Whether a voter is filling up that day or not, it’s likely that they see a pump price.”

Keep reading...Show less
Red
Daily Briefing

Think Congress Is Slow? Meet the Power Sector.

BAAJA would likely help speed up the U.S. transmission buildout, but there’s a chance we’re undercounting the benefits.

Power lines.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.

As you may have seen, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo and I got the first look at the Rhodium Group’s analysis of what the bipartisan permitting bill will do to emissions.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
AM Briefing

Neutral, at Worst

On Chinese hydrogen, Fermi upheaval, and British offshore wind

Smokestacks.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: The Pineapple Express, an atmospheric river originating in the Pacific near Hawaii, is arriving in the Southwest laden with heavy rain that’s set to flood the region • Indonesia has the worst air quality in the world as forest fires rage along Sumatra’s southern coast • A cross-country storm will soak much of the United States on Tuesday’s Election Day.


THE TOP FIVE

1. Permitting bill’s worst-case climate scenario is still carbon neutral

The Senate’s grand compromise to simplify federal permitting on energy projects would likely drop emissions slightly as the benefits to accelerating deployments of clean energy infrastructure outweigh the boost the legislation could give to fossil fuels. Even under the worst-case scenario, emissions remain on the same trajectory as today. That’s according to a hotly anticipated new analysis by the Rhodium Group, the consultancy whose U.S. emissions estimates are among the most widely cited in American politics. The report, shared first with my colleague Emily Pontecorvo, found that provisions in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act largely counteract each other on climate. The bill makes building transmission lines much easier, a key step to patching more renewables onto the grid. But it also makes new gas pipelines simpler to permit, clearing the way for a buildout of the infrastructure for the fossil fuel already dominating U.S. electricity and heating systems. Still, under the best-case scenario, the legislation could cut U.S. economy-wide emissions by 5% below where they would otherwise go in 2040. The bill could also slash energy bills by $78 per year and support construction of more than 200 gigawatts of clean energy capacity, as compared to a world where it didn’t pass. The Rhodium report is at least the second analysis yet to find that the bill could modestly lower emissions. The first, as I reported last week, came from the think tank Resources for the Future, which saw a slight drop in power-sector emissions relative to a world without BAAJA.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue