What major controversies have most impacted Fox News' credibility in the last five years?
Executive summary
Fox News’ credibility over the past five years has been most affected by high‑profile defamation litigation tied to its 2020 election coverage — including a $787.5 million Dominion settlement in April 2023 and a still‑moving $2.7 billion Smartmatic case that unveiled thousands of internal documents and employee concerns [1] [2] [3]. Internal surveys and court exhibits released in those suits depict employees and some executives worried the network tilted toward protecting Trump‑aligned viewpoints, a line of evidence that plaintiffs say shows deliberate dissemination of false election claims [4] [3].
1. The election‑fraud lawsuits: a credibility earthquake
The dominant controversy is litigation over Fox’s coverage of alleged 2020 election fraud: Dominion’s suit ended with a $787.5 million settlement and Smartmatic’s $2.7 billion suit has produced tens of thousands of pages of exhibits and remains active, centering on hosts and commentators who promoted falsehoods about voting systems [1] [3] [2]. Plaintiffs argue those shows blurred opinion and news, and court filings point to named personalities — Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro among others — as central in spreading the claims [5] [1].
2. Internal documents and employee testimony: the story inside the building
Exhibits and internal communications released in the Smartmatic litigation show texts and emails involving senior figures and revealed an internal employee survey in 2020 that questioned whether the network had “sold their soul” or was deliberately aligning with Trump to avoid alienating viewers [3] [4]. Fox has contested the relevance of some internal material to legal claims, but the filings have nevertheless fed public debates about newsroom independence and editorial standards [4] [3].
3. Mislabeling opinion as news: governance and shareholder pressure
Critics and some investor groups allege Fox systematically blurs opinion programming and straight news, a risk flagged in shareholder actions seeking disclosure about the mislabeling of opinion content — actions Fox has tried to block at the SEC level, citing the financial and reputational harms this practice can cause [1]. That charge underpins arguments in the defamation cases that viewers didn’t always distinguish commentary from factual reporting [1].
4. Broader pattern: misinformation on pandemic and other beats
Beyond the 2020 election conflicts, Fox faces prior controversies over coverage of COVID‑19 and climate topics and has drawn criticism for spreading false or misleading statements in those areas, which critics say cumulatively damaged the network’s credibility [2] [6]. Specific earlier incidents — such as Trish Regan’s 2020 segment and other contested segments — are invoked as part of a pattern by detractors [2].
5. Reputation vs. reach: audience metrics complicate the picture
Despite these controversies, Fox remains a central news source: surveys show around 38% of Americans regularly get news from Fox and half considered it a major or minor source of election news shortly before the 2024 vote, indicating strong viewer reliance even amid reputational hits [7]. That resilience helps explain why internal decisions may have weighed commercial and audience retention factors alongside editorial judgment [7].
6. Competing narratives and legal tactics: fault, motive and responsibility
Fox’s defenses emphasize editorial discretion and deny deliberate defamation; the company has argued some internal material is irrelevant and has fought to dismiss suits — tactics that frame these controversies as legal and editorial disputes as much as ethical ones [4] [1]. Plaintiffs present internal messages and employee survey responses as evidence of motive or knowledge; Fox counters those are not dispositive of the legal issues at hand [4] [1].
7. What remains unresolved and what reporting didn’t cover
Available sources document the legal filings, employee survey excerpts, settlements and large exhibits, but they do not provide a full, independent accounting of editorial decision‑making processes across every newsroom department — that deeper internal causation is not fully reconstructed in public reporting [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention a definitive, organization‑wide policy change that resolved the underlying concerns about opinion vs. news labeling [1].
8. Why it matters: credibility, liability and the business of news
The convergence of big defamation payouts and voluminous court exhibits has real financial and reputational consequences: the Dominion settlement and the Smartmatic litigation together crystallize both legal liability risks and questions about journalistic standards, fueling regulatory, investor and competitor scrutiny [1] [3]. The continuing public reliance on Fox for political news makes those credibility questions consequential for public information ecosystems [7].
Limitations: this analysis relies on reporting and legal filings made public in the cited sources; internal deliberations beyond released documents are not available in current reporting [3] [4].