Q&A: Fox News's Leslie Marshall talks journalism of the Trump age

In a 2019 address at the Newseum in Washington D.C., Fox News anchor Chris Wallace sent a clear message to his fellow journalists: “We are not participants in what we cover. We are umpires, observers trying to be objective witnesses to what is going on.”

Wallace’s remarks served as a pertinent reminder to the news hosts and reporters of the Trump era, many of whom have succumbed to the current culture of political polarization and staunch party loyalty. According to a recent Pew Research Center analysis, the ideological chasm between Democrats and Republicans has widened over the past few years — and journalists, being humans with political affiliations, too, are not exempt from this trend.

Fox News Contributor Leslie Marshall is all too familiar with the phenomenon of polarization. As a representative of the liberal viewpoint on one of the nation’s most conservative networks, Marshall witnesses firsthand the extent of our political division as she debates her Republican counterparts.

After earning an undergraduate degree in Communications from Northeastern University and a Master’s in Broadcast Journalism from Emerson College, Marshall went on to replace Tom Snyder on the ABC Satellite Radio Network in 1992. Her program aired for 3 years on over 200 stations nationwide, making her the youngest person ever syndicated in talk radio. Today, she hosts her own liberal-leaning talk show, “The Leslie Marshall Show,” which is accessible on platforms such as iHeart Radio, Tune In and other online sources.

Marshall, at home in Pasadena, California with her husband and two children, joined me via Zoom to reflect upon the novelty of the Trump presidency and the media’s coverage of his term. What follows is our conversation, edited for length and clarity, addressing the stain of polarization, the ethics of amplifying Trump’s messaging, the importance of objectivity and the future of journalism under the new administration.

I want to start by taking it back to your first years at Fox. Do you feel as though, in the pre-Trump era, you observed the same degree of division that we see now, in the post-Trump era?

I think, year by year, we became more divided. I think with the evolution of things like Facebook and Twitter, people became more politically involved. And quite frankly, with blogs and things and a lot of misinformation, I think people became politically confused.

But I do feel strongly that in the Trump years, when the president lies, and when the president uses personal attacks and language that set the tone, then we saw house and senate members on both sides starting to do this. And this is sadly where we’re at right now. It’s become the norm. So, I would say that we were divided, but not as much as we are right now.

That brings me to this buzzword: “polarization.” I think a lot of factors are often credited with causing this, whether it’s social media algorithms or Trump’s rhetoric. Which factor would you consider to be the greatest driving force behind the polarization we’re seeing in media today?

I would have to say it’s social networking because — look, what I say on radio and TV is different than what I post, and I know that’s the same for a lot of people. I think the screen and the keyboard make it easier for people to be meaner to others than they would be in person. So, I definitely think that’s a vehicle that is used.

Especially during this pandemic. A lot more people are sitting at their screens and they start to maybe go down rabbit holes. I see people on my page arguing over something I posted, I didn't — I’m not a vitriolic person, you know, I certainly try not to be, but I see that — I see how fast it goes there.

You offer the liberal perspective on this rather conservative network. Do you ever feel as though your opinion is unwelcome in certain conversations? Of course, you’re being invited onto the show, but you do take an opposing stance.

Honestly, no. Not unwelcome, one: because I’m invited on the show, two: because I’ve been there for so long and they know me and three: respect is earned, and I’ve earned it. But I give it, too. I feel challenged, yes, not agreed with, yes, but I don't feel dismissed. People watching may dismiss what I say or not respect or believe what I say, but I don't feel that way from the people I work with or am on panels with at the network.

And it’s great to hear that there’s this mutual respect, even though you’re mentioning how political beliefs are so intense right now.

Tomi Lahren and I like each other personally. I think, one time, at the Los Angeles Fox Bureau, we ran down the hall and hugged each other and half the people in the building just sat there with their mouths dropped. People have to understand that it’s not that we’re being disingenuous when we’re on the air, it’s just sort of like, “We’re working. But when we’re finished with work, let’s go grab a beer.”

I wanted to address the handling of Trump’s election fraud claims. Do you feel as though media outlets such as Fox were enabling these “conspiracy theories,” for lack of a better word, to gain traction?

I think what has happened with all networks, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, is there are journalistic components where people are reporting the news. But then, you have people like me and others who opine about the news on those programs.

I’m a talk show host, and when I give my opinion, someone can agree with it or disagree with it. But I feel we have a responsibility as people to do our due diligence and do our homework when someone is telling us something — especially when someone is an opinion-based host. At the end of the day, we’re all responsible for ourselves and our own behavior. So no, I don’t feel that.

There’s a conversation circulating about whether or not journalists should have continued to give Trump such a platform. So, I’m curious to hear your perspective as a journalist who has a duty to the truth, a duty to cover the nation’s highest office for the public. How do you reconcile people asking you to take a step back?

It’s funny you say this, because I think I tweeted today that the media has to stop covering Marjorie Taylor Greene every time she speaks.

But if the president of the United States is saying or doing something newsworthy, you have to cover it. I don’t know that we always have to cover the president walking from the White House to Air Force One. I saw more of that certainly with Donald Trump than any other president, at least in my lifetime.

Do you think that very consistent coverage was a symptom of the fact that he was already a celebrity before?

Yeah, it’s the way he does it. Why does AOC get so much more attention than some of the other people? She’s a very good speaker, she’s passionate about what she believes and that appeals to a certain segment of our population. Quite frankly, Marjorie Taylor Greene has that as well. And Trump certainly had that also.

And I think that sometimes, these claims made by people like Trump, people like Marjorie Taylor Greene are attention-seeking in a way. Do you think there are any ethical drawbacks to providing platforms for attention-seeking behavior like that?

Certainly. January 6th is the perfect example of a drawback where you combine the misinformation with the emotion. Absolutely, there is a danger to that. The problem is — example: there are times when I’ll be watching a documentary, and in that documentary, they’ll be covering something horrific. And if you notice, the journalist doesn't interfere with the terrible act that you’re watching. Horrific, isn't it? So, do you cover it, or put the camera down and stop it? Technically, we the people aren't going to know what’s happening if somebody isn't covering or reporting it.

And when you’re showing it to the public, you create an opportunity to catalyze change.

Yes. Think about it, there’s been racial injustice in this country since this country started … And for some people, even some people in my own family, they either didn't believe it or didn't realize how bad it was until they saw an eight-minute video of George Floyd. Now, somebody was capturing that on the phone. There are people who say, “why didn't anybody help him?” But thank god he captured it, because we saw the truth of what happened in that situation and it started a movement.

Journalism definitely did change under Trump, for better or for worse. I think there is some value in his term, whether it led to more extensive fact-checking or a discussion about the importance of the press in society. So, what would you say is the most positive change in journalism that emerged from Trump’s presidency?

Hmmm. I think more people became involved in the process of government. At the end of his four years, when he said Pence could overturn the election, look at how many people googled and found out that the vice president only reads the election results and that’s what the constitution says. Perhaps more Americans are being aware of and reading our constitution and learning about how government truly is supposed to function.

So, on polarization, I feel like it’s this vicious cycle where we get caught in these echo chambers and it only further radicalizes us in our beliefs. Your work on Fox is actively combatting the formation of these echo chambers, how do you weigh that responsibility?

You know, there are people who have said to me, “I don’t understand why you would rather be on Fox than on another network.” And quite frankly, let’s just say I was on the MSNBC, I’m preaching to the choir.

Whether I’m on Fox or wherever I’m on, my responsibility is to just be honest. And that doesn’t mean as a Democrat I always agree with Democrats. I don’t. And I think that’s why I, as a liberal, am more palatable to the more conservative segment of the Fox audience because I’m willing to call out my own. I don't get commission from the DNC for stating their talking points. And I don’t want to state their talking points because someone on another network, or even my network, is going to do that. I want what I say to be different, to be unique, but to be honest.

And separate from that loyalism to political parties we see on some networks.

Right.

Do you think the polarization we see will continue to worsen under Biden, or do you think it might have just been exacerbated by Trump’s presidency?

I think it will exist for the foreseeable future. But I don't think at the degree that it was, because you don’t have somebody fanning the flames. You see people trying to do that, the Marjorie Taylor Greenes and supporters of her, but I don’t think their voices are as loud, and I think that their voices will eventually be drowned out. Until the leaders stop the polarized rhetoric, I don’t think it’ll ever stop, but I just don't believe it’ll be at that level.

And while we’re on the topic of the future of journalism, that brings me to the last question that I had. I feel like Trump’s presidency was chaotic, but you touched on this earlier — he was constantly pushing the news cycle forward. I think a lot of journalists have this fear that Biden’s administration might be boring in comparison. Ultimately, boring isn't desired in journalism. You’re a business, you want ratings. Do you share in this concern?

I welcome the boredom as a human.

We laugh.

But I know what you’re saying. I think Marjorie Taylor Greene has become the female version of Trump to an extent, at least for the next two years — if the media continues to put a microphone in front of her. Look, if she’s speaking right now, and it's not posted or covered by the networks, that voice is going to die down. But if you give someone a spotlight, camera rolling, a microphone, you're amplifying it and you're feeding the beast — and you'll get more.

So, she might start to fill the Trump-shaped vacuum in the media?

Correct.