Which of these is the most likely explanation of why the Fox News coverage of the Stern Report was so different from the other stories about the report?

Answer 1

The political perspective of Fox News is different from the other media outlets.

Answer 2

You did not provide the choices, but here's the probable explanation, and it's in two parts. Part one: the news division of Fox, with neutral reports like Bret Baier or Shep Smith or talk hosts like Chris Wallace, probably DID provide reasoned and generally fair coverage of the Stern report, and while they undoubtedly mentioned that not everyone agrees with its conclusions, they would have noted that the vast majority of the scientific community does believe climate change is real, and that human behavior (such as corporations that pollute the environment) is a major factor. But, then, there is part two.

Because 85-90% of Fox News is really opinion-based, and that opinion is driven by the goals and policies of the Republican Party, Fox's coverage focused on the small number of scientists who question climate change, as well as giving outsized influence to pundits from corporations who do not want to curb pollutants. The goal of such commentary is to sow doubt in the public mind about whether climate change is real and caused in any way by the actions of humans. Republicans in congress have been hostile to the idea that humans cause (or affect) climate change, and since the party receives large amounts of contributions from corporations like Koch Industries, which opposes the concept of climate change, the conclusions of the Stern Report would have been questioned, challenged, and in some cases, insulted by Fox opinion pundits.