Twenty years ago, two courageous visionaries, Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly, came down from the mountain with stone tablets and restored the journalistic standards that were long ago abandoned by their competitors. Fox viewers were so inspired, they pledged lifetime fealty to the new Camelot. That’s the myth anyway.
Kingdoms and dynasties are often built on sand and sustained by the faith of the masses. Leaders are not terribly self-critical. They see themselves as wise and indispensable; in North Korea even divine. Can you imagine North Korea without Kim Jong-un, Cuba without a Castro, Fox News without Bill O’Reilly? The Green Bay Packers without Bret Favre? (Well, the Packers have somehow managed with Aaron Rodgers at the helm.)
O’Reilly is a perplexing sort. We have all seen him doing his magic on the ‘Factor’ and nearly everyone has an opinion . O’Reilly is thoughtful, sometimes engaging; at other times, patronizing and condescending. He treats some contributors like misguided children or pets. To be fair, O’Reilly is my age. A little bit patronizing could be charming ‘lion in the winter’ stuff. But O’Reilly is pretty arrogant and he has probably considered himself the adult in the room since he was twelve years old.
Personality journalism didn’t originate at Fox. But it was defined there. Of course, O’Reilly interviews guests, but with rare exceptions such as Bernie Goldberg, Brit Hume or POTUS, the guests are typically foils, used mostly for contrast. Night in, night out, O’Reilly is interviewing himself.
While his analysis is for the most part reasonable, who cares? I want to hear from the guests. I don’t need Bill looking out for me and I suspect it is not his politics that annoys his enemies as much as his self-absorption.
The fall of Roger Ailes was justice inexcusably delayed. Unlike the O’Reilly harassment allegations, we already have overwhelming evidence to support the allegations against Ailes. That said, Roger Ailes did build the kingdom at Fox. Although Fox was never Camelot (at least for the women), it was a superior news operation. It was simply better than the competition. Unfortunately, Ailes built a kingdom he was never fit to rule or destined to sustain. He lacked the moral authority to enforce standards. Ailes understood leverage and coercion. Leadership was a foreign concept.
Before the pillars of the Fox temple fell, some of the defections should have provoked some corporate introspection. People were leaving Fox to make lateral moves or worse, for voluntary unemployment. While the losses of Alisyn Camerota,, Greta Van Susteren, Mary Katherine Ham and Juliet Huddy were managed gracefully, the departures of Megan Kelly and Gretchen Carlson raised serious questions about the work environment.
Megan Kelly had a high-profile platform and the power to control her future. Gretchen Carlson was a quality journalist. She did her time in purgatory on Fox and Friends, the weakest program on the network. She had the rug pulled from under her on “The Real Story.” It is clear now that the work was not the primary stress for either anchor.
Another notable loss was Kirsten Powers. Ms .Powers is smart, articulate, honest and funny. Her unfortunate departure demonstrated that Fox management itself did not really understand what made Fox special. Kirsten Powers is a left-leaning partisan. Nevertheless, I often found myself wondering ‘what would Kirsten Powers think about this? Her analysis was actually analysis, not spin, not damage control. Her answers were never fashioned to carry water for a political cause.
Powers and a right-leaning counterpart Steve Hayes are both ideological and fair. They may be the two best political analysts on television. Power’s loss was nearly comparable to Megan Kelly’s. The genesis of her discontent deserved further examination.
Where does Fox go from here? The bench is still deep. Martha MacCallum has finally been given the opportunity that she earned long ago. I am disappointed that she didn’t get the Factor time slot but she finally hit prime time.
Harris Faulkner is an underappreciated gem. She reminds me of Charlayne Hunter-Gault. She and Julie Banderas belong in prime-time programming.
The quality of the Fox contributors is a bit uneven, but several including Ellen Ratner, Jessica Tarlov and Tammy Bruce. are well-informed, articulate and fair. The military analysts are exceptional, as are, John Bolton and Rick Grenell.
There is some dead wood. Steve Doocy fails to meet even the minimum standards for objectivity. ‘Fox and Friends’ seems to exist in a universe utterly without editorial oversight. Granted, this is morning programming, but he consistently reflects poorly on the program, the producers and the network. The male political strategists on the democratic side tend to be arrogant and rude and most could stand to be rotated out. And Hannity? He has some skills, but ‘fair and balanced’ isn’t among them.
The corporate culture needs work. They have to stop the bleeding. But the appeal of Fox News has never been the larger-than-life personalities or a perceived right-wing bias. If news is the focus in the coming weeks, the storm will pass. If the narrative is “boys behaving badly” who knows? Bigger trees have fallen. Either way the departures of Ailes and O’Reilly will be important only in their memoirs.