Main Edition
US
FR
August 21, 2023 - 5:50pm
Recent years have seen a growing rift between the two great moguls of American conservatism, Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch. The former president has snubbed Fox News’s Republican primary debate in favour of an interview appearance with ex-Murdoch employee Tucker Carlson, now the foremost figure in the online “dissident Right”. For his part, Murdoch and his outlets (fresh from a $788 million settlement) have offered only lukewarm coverage of Trump’s campaign, subtly shifting their preference to rival Ron DeSantis, and now Glenn Youngkin.
But how long can Murdoch and Trump really stay at odds? How much can the Republican frontrunner do without the help of Fox and vice versa? When there are only two teams, Red and Blue, in a hyper-polarised country, the risks of continuing disunity are simply too high for the two men not to resume their symbiotic “alliance of mutual interest”.
This is, after all, what happened the first time around and it worked brilliantly for both: Donald Trump enjoyed almost worshipful treatment from Fox News, even as virtual war broke out between the administration and most other major media outlets, while Murdoch’s network exerted genuine, tangible influence on the then-president’s policies — most evident in the regular hiring Fox News commentators to fill roles in the White House.
This practice led to, for instance, the hiring of John Bolton as National Security Adviser after Trump saw him on a Fox appearance; when Bolton then recommended a strike on Iran, Trump suddenly changed his mind on the matter because he saw Tucker Carlson, also on Fox News, warn against the consequences of such an action. Strike or no strike — the fact was that it was Fox News shaping the president’s worldview at all times. With so much power and influence at stake, the rivalry between legacy and dissident media concerns nothing less than the future of the conservative movement.
For much of the Trump presidency and beyond, Tucker Carlson acted as a bridge between the two worlds, having a primetime network perch on the one hand, and on the other, using it to invite figures from well outside the boundaries of the conservative mainstream. This contributed to the intellectual vibrancy of conservative discourse in the Trump era, such as, for instance, when Carlson questioned the wisdom of tax cuts or when he uttered many “based” opinions about immigration or feminism. But it was also a fundamentally unsustainable act and went against the all-important gatekeeping function exercised by establishment figures like Murdoch, which is why Carlson was ousted.
The former president’s decision to engage with Carlson instead of Fox News on debate night seems like a vindication of the dissident Right’s efforts to displace their legacy enemies. However, with Trump still on track to be the Republican nominee, indictments and all, there is reason to believe that this is only a temporary break between the two old friends.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhen the reference for Carlson’s supposed declining viewership is a month and a half old report in the Independent, then the author is playing fast and loose with his journalistic credibility.
Carlson had an audience of around 3.3 million at Fox. Referring to his Twitter account, his latest video, interviewing aspiring Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswarmy, has had 42.8 million views. The Trump interview will get over a 100 million. That’s just Twitter. Posted clips will be viewed millions more times on YouTube.
Fox’s supposed bounce back has been to recover from a low of 1.5 million, to 2.2 million. A whopping 700,000 people.
If he gets the nomination, Fox will support Trump no matter what. Trump doesn’t need to court them. Like all legacy media, they are becoming ever more irrelevant.
When the reference for Carlson’s supposed declining viewership is a month and a half old report in the Independent, then the author is playing fast and loose with his journalistic credibility.
Carlson had an audience of around 3.3 million at Fox. Referring to his Twitter account, his latest video, interviewing aspiring Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswarmy, has had 42.8 million views. The Trump interview will get over a 100 million. That’s just Twitter. Posted clips will be viewed millions more times on YouTube.
Fox’s supposed bounce back has been to recover from a low of 1.5 million, to 2.2 million. A whopping 700,000 people.
If he gets the nomination, Fox will support Trump no matter what. Trump doesn’t need to court them. Like all legacy media, they are becoming ever more irrelevant.
Just when you thought Anheuser-Busch had alienated their core customer base and made the worst business decision in corporate history, ….
Up stepped Rupert Murdoch, “Hold my Bud Light.”
But I have to say, this idea that Murdoch’s media empire somehow acts as his personal propaganda unit gets repeated so often on the pages of the Guardian and around bien pensant dinner tables that it has almost become an accepted fact.
I’m no apologist for the man, believe me, after 10 years of working for him, I feel no need to defend the man, but a quick look at Murdoch’s range of UK media and a look at the range of opinion across them on the single biggest issue of the last 20 years – Brexit – might be illustrative.
The Sun: Heavily pro-Leave, regularly denigrating EU and Remainers
The Times: Relatively neutral, but opted for pro-Remain
Sky News: Staunchly pro-Remain, constantly belittling Leavers.
If Murdoch is really influencing the editorial lines across his media outlets then he would appear to be oddly schizophrenic in his opinions.
I have asked the question many times before of those who are convinced of his limitless reach – “Do you really think his various media outlets ‘brainwash’ readers or is it more likely that they just reflect the opinions of readers?” and the follow up, “If you think the former then ask yourself, do you believe what you believe simply because the Guardian told you so, or do you read the Guardian because it reflects your worldview?”
Just when you thought Anheuser-Busch had alienated their core customer base and made the worst business decision in corporate history, ….
Up stepped Rupert Murdoch, “Hold my Bud Light.”
But I have to say, this idea that Murdoch’s media empire somehow acts as his personal propaganda unit gets repeated so often on the pages of the Guardian and around bien pensant dinner tables that it has almost become an accepted fact.
I’m no apologist for the man, believe me, after 10 years of working for him, I feel no need to defend the man, but a quick look at Murdoch’s range of UK media and a look at the range of opinion across them on the single biggest issue of the last 20 years – Brexit – might be illustrative.
The Sun: Heavily pro-Leave, regularly denigrating EU and Remainers
The Times: Relatively neutral, but opted for pro-Remain
Sky News: Staunchly pro-Remain, constantly belittling Leavers.
If Murdoch is really influencing the editorial lines across his media outlets then he would appear to be oddly schizophrenic in his opinions.
I have asked the question many times before of those who are convinced of his limitless reach – “Do you really think his various media outlets ‘brainwash’ readers or is it more likely that they just reflect the opinions of readers?” and the follow up, “If you think the former then ask yourself, do you believe what you believe simply because the Guardian told you so, or do you read the Guardian because it reflects your worldview?”
$788 million settlement
Ha ha. A Freudian slip by the author, I suspect.
Ha ha. A Freudian slip by the author, I suspect.
$788 million settlement
Long term trends don’t need to favor dissidents because change usually happens incrementally and at the margin. It’s only when that process is actively stifled through power that a violent, sudden rearrangement of the political and social order becomes a possibility, and we’re not there just yet. The Republican party of fifteen years ago was very much like the Democrats, a globalist big business friendly party. Their disagreements on things like taxes, health care, immigration, etc. were differences of degree more than principle. However, this model left a lot of people and views out in the political wilderness. Enter Donald Trump, a self-promoter whose only identifiable talent is to read the people in a room and tell them what they want to hear. His appearance cuts across the political spectrum in bringing in the disaffected and disillusioned. It wasn’t that the elites suddenly lost their power, it was that there was plenty of power outside the guardrails they had been enforcing. Trump just happened to be willing to use it when others weren’t. Simply by virtue of his lack of shame and personal bravado, he showed half of the establishment how weak they truly were, and regardless of his many and well documented personal failings, one cannot unring the bell Trump sounded. The people who supported Trump aren’t going away now that they’ve asserted themselves. The choices for anybody trying to hang onto influence in the Republican party are to adapt to the political insurgency that isn’t going away anytime soon, try to join the other side, or try to use some combination of legal shenanigans and procedures to deliberately exclude Trump, or whoever else might come along, risking pushing more people into the dissident camp. The Republican response has mostly been a mixture of the first two, with a few diehards willing to die on the hill of Republicanism as it used to be. Unlike some of the media titans of the left or the Mitt Romney’s of the world, I doubt Murdoch is stupid enough to diligently and repeatedly shoot himself in the foot in this manner. Most would rather play ball with the dissident movement rather than commit political seppuku over their ‘principles’. The dissidents will exert influence on the percentage of the establishment that chooses to stick around and compromise, and be influenced by said establishment at the same time, resulting over time in a synthesis that is, if not better, then at least more representative of the people’s will, and an actual alternative to the other side. Change doesn’t happen quickly, it’s a process of push and pull, give and take, that plays out over a long time. The Republican party of 2030 will likely not look exactly like a blue collar populist party, nor will it resemble the Republican party of 2010.
Long term trends don’t need to favor dissidents because change usually happens incrementally and at the margin. It’s only when that process is actively stifled through power that a violent, sudden rearrangement of the political and social order becomes a possibility, and we’re not there just yet. The Republican party of fifteen years ago was very much like the Democrats, a globalist big business friendly party. Their disagreements on things like taxes, health care, immigration, etc. were differences of degree more than principle. However, this model left a lot of people and views out in the political wilderness. Enter Donald Trump, a self-promoter whose only identifiable talent is to read the people in a room and tell them what they want to hear. His appearance cuts across the political spectrum in bringing in the disaffected and disillusioned. It wasn’t that the elites suddenly lost their power, it was that there was plenty of power outside the guardrails they had been enforcing. Trump just happened to be willing to use it when others weren’t. Simply by virtue of his lack of shame and personal bravado, he showed half of the establishment how weak they truly were, and regardless of his many and well documented personal failings, one cannot unring the bell Trump sounded. The people who supported Trump aren’t going away now that they’ve asserted themselves. The choices for anybody trying to hang onto influence in the Republican party are to adapt to the political insurgency that isn’t going away anytime soon, try to join the other side, or try to use some combination of legal shenanigans and procedures to deliberately exclude Trump, or whoever else might come along, risking pushing more people into the dissident camp. The Republican response has mostly been a mixture of the first two, with a few diehards willing to die on the hill of Republicanism as it used to be. Unlike some of the media titans of the left or the Mitt Romney’s of the world, I doubt Murdoch is stupid enough to diligently and repeatedly shoot himself in the foot in this manner. Most would rather play ball with the dissident movement rather than commit political seppuku over their ‘principles’. The dissidents will exert influence on the percentage of the establishment that chooses to stick around and compromise, and be influenced by said establishment at the same time, resulting over time in a synthesis that is, if not better, then at least more representative of the people’s will, and an actual alternative to the other side. Change doesn’t happen quickly, it’s a process of push and pull, give and take, that plays out over a long time. The Republican party of 2030 will likely not look exactly like a blue collar populist party, nor will it resemble the Republican party of 2010.
The relationship between Trump and Murdoch has obviously soured, but this has nothing to do with his decision not to participate in the debate. Even someone as foolish as Trump would understand there is only downside to the debate.
The relationship between Trump and Murdoch has obviously soured, but this has nothing to do with his decision not to participate in the debate. Even someone as foolish as Trump would understand there is only downside to the debate.
OK. PAY ATTENTION CLASS: Donald Trump is NOT a conservative, never has been, never will be. Neither is Rupert Murdoch, by any traditional definition of the word, that is. Nor is the so-called “dissident Right”. They are a bunch of renegades, jingoists, and arch-libertarians. This is not conservatism. Please.
Quite right. Real conservatives seek the approbation of Guardian readers.
Yours, Albert [They/Them] a real conservative
Remember, according to the neocons, the history of the Republican Party started with Regan. Also “neoconservative” gives it away that there was conservatism before whatever the modern GOP variant is supposed to be. Personally, I was always much more of an Eisenhower Republican anyway.
After Lincoln and before Reagan the Republican party simply didn’t exist. What do the neocons make of Eisenhower?
After Lincoln and before Reagan the Republican party simply didn’t exist. What do the neocons make of Eisenhower?
Remember, according to the neocons, the history of the Republican Party started with Regan. Also “neoconservative” gives it away that there was conservatism before whatever the modern GOP variant is supposed to be. Personally, I was always much more of an Eisenhower Republican anyway.
Quite right. Real conservatives seek the approbation of Guardian readers.
Yours, Albert [They/Them] a real conservative
OK. PAY ATTENTION CLASS: Donald Trump is NOT a conservative, never has been, never will be. Neither is Rupert Murdoch, by any traditional definition of the word, that is. Nor is the so-called “dissident Right”. They are a bunch of renegades, jingoists, and arch-libertarians. This is not conservatism. Please.
RUPERT Murdoch is an old man, partially retired. He’s the current owner of Murdoch empire, just like King Abdulaziz rules Seoudi Arabia : in name only.
The Murdoch heirs do not share Trump MAGA views, event though they are somewhat aware that the Fox News viewers love Trump.
There is no way Trump can rely on people who hate his guts and reluctantly pretend to cooperate with him because the Fox clients are scrutinizing them
Trump’s new candidacy is more than a little of a tragedy – he’s been left and cipher and an empty shell, now refusing any debates.
It’s not confirmed yet, the GOP should try to push Haley into the breach, but it is certainly going to make a lot of money for the same old media people all over again.
Putin and Xi will be utterly delighted if the Trump-Carlson Grifters make up with Murdoch. They are rooting for them.
Putin and Xi will be utterly delighted if the Trump-Carlson Grifters make up with Murdoch. They are rooting for them.