Chris Stirewalt opens his op-ed in the LA Times with a story about a 19th century newspaper editor who went to great lengths to be the first to report the results of an important election.
Back in those days, being first was a huge badge of honor and a point of pride.
Not so much anymore. Stirewalt, who worked as an election forecaster on the decision desk at Fox News, was fired by Fox last week after he correctly — and first — called Arizona for Joe Biden.
Stirewalt writes that he was proud of his call in the face of “a public backlash egged on by former President Trump.” But being first in this case was being out on a limb.
Being first with the account or images of major events is a thing of scant value now. What one outlet has, every outlet will have, usually within seconds. Indeed, being first can prove to be a commercial disadvantage.
Having worked in cable news for more than a decade after a wonderfully misspent youth in newspapers, I can tell you the result: a nation of news consumers both overfed and malnourished. Americans gorge themselves daily on empty informational calories, indulging their sugar fixes of self-affirming half-truths and even outright lies.
He goes on to describe the world of cable news today where executives can track even minute changes in viewership minute to minute, enabling them to give viewers what they want all the time.
He says that the competitive advantage in cable news today goes to those who “habituate” their viewers instead of delivering hard truths they need to hear.
The rebellion on the populist right against the results of the 2020 election was partly a cynical, knowing effort by political operators and their hype men in the media to steal an election or at least get rich trying. But it was also the tragic consequence of the informational malnourishment so badly afflicting the nation.
When I defended the call for Biden in the Arizona election, I became a target of murderous rage from consumers who were furious at not having their views confirmed.
Stirewalt leaves a lot out of his op-ed.
He doesn’t talk about the decision to call Arizona a lot earlier than other networks were willing to do. What did he see that others didn’t?
He doesn’t talk about what feedback/pressure he likely received from his bosses at Fox.
He lays scathing blame on the system but doesn’t name names, though it’s hard to blame him for that given the need to find future employment and not burn too many bridges.