Fox News Fixates On Post-Chauvin Verdict Violence — That Never Happened
Updating the “if a tree falls” thought experiment to the current political-media landscape, one might ask, “If a jury verdict does not lead to violent protests and riots, can pundits still complain about them?”
The answer is a resounding yes, at least among pundits on Fox News, where opinion programming focused far more on the threat of civil unrest than the actual justice that was served in the conviction of Derek Chauvin for the killing of George Floyd.
Watching the conservative cable news channel in the hours that followed the jury’s decision, viewers heard much fretting about the threat of riots and violence, even though no post-verdict doomsday prophecies materialized.
To sum up, the arguments made by many on Fox, the verdict was good, but the threat of riots (that never happened) is the real societal problem here. Or, when there is nothing to reasonably complain about, let’s amplify grievance over something that didn’t happen.
The good news is that the verdict was almost universally deemed fair. A nine-minute video of someone dying in real-time under the knee of a police officer is a tough bit of evidence to defend. But rather than focus on rare accountability for a murderous cop, Fox News viewers heard repeated complaints (presented without evidence) that the jury was unduly influenced by fears of a repeat of the violent unrest and burned-out buildings seen following the murder of George Floyd.
Take, for example, law professor Jonathan Turley’s appearance on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning. Turley praised the verdict, but argued that “the greatest danger is that people will conclude they have a license to riot or cause violence if they disagree with the verdict.”
This is a much more nuanced expression of Greg Gutfeld’s remark that he didn’t care if Chauvin was guilty or not; The Five host said he was in favor of whatever verdict meant there would be no looting. After his co-hosts audibly groaned at his assessment, Gutfeld defended himself as “just being honest.”
One Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, actually rejected the verdict, claiming (also without any evidence) that it was the product of fear.
So there you have it, an argument for either outcome. If there is violence, Carlson can cover it gleefully. If there isn’t, that’s just proof that the jurors, who remain anonymous and have not spoken to Carlson as far as we know, must have been scared.
The reason behind focusing on the threat of violence, even if it never occurred, is clear. It fits a familiar narrative on much of Fox News programming that relies on presenting Antifa and BLM protests, as well as the recent comments of Maxine Waters, as a real threat to their viewers.
The purest distillation of this strange response to the verdict came Wednesday morning when Turley was asked by host Pete Hegseth, “How do we make sure that justice system works without being under the threat or the veiled threat or the overt threat of violence should it not go a certain way?” Turley said called that idea “common sense” while noting the judge in the Chauvin case was attacked for saying the same. (Remember that Turley lauded the verdict).
News of the guilty verdict was lauded by nearly every pundit across the political spectrum, which is no small feat in these hyperpartisan times. That included nearly every pundit on Fox News. Turley said that the “jury clearly got it right,” and Jeanine Pirro saw the verdict as evidence that the “American justice system works.”
It did work, and the response to the verdict was peaceful. How does one square that reaction with Fox News coverage that has continued, after a quiet night across the country, to warn of a specter of violence that will never appear? It doesn’t add up unless the goal isn’t reason, but fear.
Correction: a previous version misattributed a quote from Hegseth to Turley, though the law professor agreed with the idea. The post has been corrected.
This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
