By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Fox News programs have extensively focused on the international business dealings of Hunter Biden, yet largely ignored the extensive conflicts of interest involving President Trump and his family with Persian Gulf states. Despite significant business entanglements between Trump, his sons, and Jared Kushner, and entities connected to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, and Qatar, these conflicts received minimal coverage on Fox News. This stands in stark contrast to the network’s prolonged obsession with the Bidens, despite the lack of substantive evidence of Joe Biden profiting from his son’s ventures. The article suggests that the Trump family’s business dealings, including substantial investments from Gulf states, are intertwined with the president’s foreign policy decisions, particularly regarding Iran.
Read the original article here
It appears to be a widely held sentiment that Fox News consistently sidesteps any scrutiny of the Trump family’s potential conflicts of interest. The core of this perspective suggests that the network, rather than acting as a purveyor of objective news, functions more as a dedicated platform for a specific political agenda. This is often framed as a deliberate choice, rooted in the very establishment of the network itself, which some believe was created with the express purpose of safeguarding conservative presidents from public disapproval, a lesson purportedly learned from the aftermath of Watergate.
The contrast drawn is stark: while the “Biden Crime Family” was, according to this view, a daily narrative for four years on Fox News, despite numerous investigations yielding no evidence of wrongdoing, the Trump family’s potential improprieties are met with a deafening silence. This selective reporting is seen not as an oversight, but as a foundational operating principle. When instances of apparent corruption or blatant conflicts of interest involving the Trump family surface, the response from the network is described as nonexistent, leading to the rather pointed observation that one should perhaps consider it “fox entertainment not Fox News.”
The concept of “conflicts of interest” is often reinterpreted in this context as “obvious rampant corruption.” This perspective highlights specific examples, such as a report detailing Melania Trump’s substantial payment from Jeff Bezos, who is also a government contractor. The juxtaposition of this with the perceived triviality of Fox News’s coverage of Hunter Biden, where a simple trip to Panda Express could be framed as part of a larger conspiracy, underscores the alleged double standard. The question is raised as to when, if ever, Fox News transitioned from being a mere entertainment outlet to a credible news source, with some suggesting its appeal lies primarily with a segment of the population that prefers to be told what to think rather than to engage with factual reporting.
Furthermore, the discussion often touches upon the broader implications of this editorial stance. The idea is that Fox News deliberately avoids scrutinizing the Trump family because their base relies on a narrative of grievance and perceived victimhood, which an uncritical embrace of Trump and his family helps to maintain. This allows the network to operate as what some label a “right-wing extremist propaganda tool,” with the inclusion of “News” in its name serving as a deceptive branding strategy to lend an air of legitimacy to its disseminations of disinformation.
The deliberate omission of reporting on potential Trump family conflicts is not viewed as an accident but as a strategic maneuver. It serves to placate the far-right voter base by avoiding narratives that might challenge their fervent support. This is seen as the network operating “as intended,” by igniting opposition and reinforcing the convictions of its core audience. The criticism extends to the belief that conservatives, in this view, do not seek out truth but rather confirmation of their existing beliefs, and Fox News provides precisely that.
The contrast is further emphasized by the types of questions Fox News allegedly asks. While inquiries into Hunter Biden’s laptop and its contents were prevalent, the same level of investigative curiosity is absent when it comes to potential revelations from Donald Trump Jr.’s communications. This selective journalistic focus solidifies the perception of a predetermined narrative, one that actively shields the Trump family from the kind of scrutiny applied to others. The notion is that if the Trump family were genuinely concerned with the welfare of the American people, rather than self-enrichment, the media landscape might look different.
The argument posits that Fox News’s business model is inherently tied to the continued corruption and controversy surrounding the GOP. If these issues were adequately addressed or resolved, the network might lose its justification for promoting false information and propaganda. Therefore, a vested interest exists in perpetuating the narrative of partisan conflict and perceived injustices, making the reporting of Trump family conflicts of interest counterproductive to the network’s core mission.
The very designation of the network as “Fox News” is, for many, an oxymoron. The suggestion is that the term “news” is used to obscure the reality of the network’s function as an entertainment or propaganda channel. Court proceedings have even seen the network argue that its content should be viewed as entertainment or individual opinion, a stark admission that undermines its claim to journalistic integrity. This leads to the characterization of the channel as the “Fox Propaganda Channel,” a label that encapsulates the sentiment that its primary purpose is not to inform but to influence.
Ultimately, the perceived lack of interest from Fox News in the Trump family’s conflicts of interest is seen as a deliberate and calculated strategy, deeply ingrained in the network’s DNA. It is viewed as a continuation of a long-standing pattern of partisan loyalty, where the pursuit of truth takes a backseat to the preservation of a particular political ideology and the interests of its key figures. The emphasis is on the intentionality of this omission, suggesting that it is not a mere oversight but a core component of how the network operates.