That's a real piece of misdirect by Murdoch press though and typical of their editorial stance.

To quote Multi-decadal trends and variability in burned area from the 5th version of the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED5) [1] (one of many similar studies)

* Burned area declined by 1.21±0.66% yr-1 20 , a cumulative decrease of 24.2±13.2% over 20 years.

* The global reduction is primarily driven by decreases in fire within savannas, grasslands, and croplands.

* Forest, peat, and deforestation fires did not exhibit long-term trends.

So, managed areas are increasingly having fewer fires for a variety of reasons and they're a big part of the non ice areas across the globe.

Forest fires aren't decreasing, more worrying areas that typically don't see frequent fires are now seeing fires more often.

The Fox message is that beacuse total global fire area is reducing there's no need to worry about massive forest fires in places that typically don't see such things.

If ten thousand acres of seasonal grass fires doesn't happen does that really offset a thousand acres of old growth forest being torched to the ground?

[1] https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2023-182/essd-202...