Media Matters searched transcripts in the SnapStream video database for all original programming on Fox News Channel for any of the terms “Trump,” “hush,” or “Stormy” or any of the terms “Manhattan,” “New York,” “NYC,” or “Bragg” within close proximity of the term “trial” and within close proximity of either of the terms “jury” or “juror” from April 15, 2024, when jury selection for former president Donald Trump's hush-money trial began, through April 21, 2024.
We included claims, which we defined as instances of uninterrupted blocks of speech from a single speaker that discussed jury selection in Trump's hush-money trial. For host monologues, headlines, and correspondent reports, we defined a claim as the speech between read quotes and played clips. We did not consider the speech within read quotes or played clips unless a speaker in the segment positively affirmed said speech either directly before or after the quote was read or the clip was played.
We then reviewed the identified claims for whether they expressed doubt that individual jurors or the jury could or would be fair or impartial or suggested that individual jurors or the jury could or would not be fair or impartial, including claims suggesting that seating a fair or impartial jury would be too arduous or difficult; expressing doubt about the speed at which jurors were selected; suggesting that some jurors would lie about whether they could withhold their biases while serving on the jury; suggesting that some jurors would be secret liberal activists, “Trojan horse” jurors, or “stealth” jurors determined to find against Trump; suggesting that historical voting patterns in Manhattan would necessarily prejudice the jury or individual jurors against Trump; or suggesting that the jury would be rigged from the onset.
We also reviewed the identified claims for whether they discussed or analyzed private information about specific, individual jurors to suggest that they cannot or would not be fair or impartial, including claims speculating on the identity (name, address, or other identifying information) of a specific juror; suggesting that content from individual jurors' social media accounts indicated they cannot or would not be fair or impartial; or suggesting that individual jurors' media consumption habits, professions, employers, hobbies, appearances, dating habits, or demographics (age, race, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality) would necessarily prejudice them against Trump.