The new "documentary" Outfoxed looks to take on Rupert Murdoch in the same way that liberal activist Michael Moore took on the Bush administration with his highly successful Fahrenheit 9/11. Though director Robert Greenwald's film is unlikely to see anywhere near the 2000 screen nation-wide release that Moore's left-wing polemic enjoyed (in fact, it's unlikely to make it into any theater outside of the small "house party" screenings ), the American media's infatuation with themselves has ensured heavy coverage of the film's DVD release.
True to form, the New York Times penned a love letter to Greenwald in this week's magazine:
The film is an obsessively researched expose of the ways in which Fox News, as Greenwald sees it, distorts its coverage to serve the conservative political agenda of its owner, the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. It features interviews with former Fox employees, leaked policy memos written by Fox executives and extensive footage from Fox News, which Greenwald is using without the network's permission. The result is an unwavering argument against Fox News that combines the leftist partisan vigor of a Michael Moore film with the sober tone and delivery of a PBS special.Whatever points are to be made about the so-called conservative bias at Fox News could just as easily be made about the liberal slant at CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS. So why take on Fox, the lone network with a right-of-center slant? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the film was financed by the ultra-liberal groups MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress.
The Washington Post sums it up nicely:
But Greenwald, whose last movie was "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War," makes no effort at fairness or balance himself. Not only did he avoid contacting Fox, and indulge in some misleading editing, but the film also features a parade of the network's liberal detractors — including Al Franken, Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders, the group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and out-of-the-closet liberal columnist Walter Cronkite.Say what you will about Michael Moore, at the very least he offers his political opponents equal time in his films, even if it's only to ridicule them as he did with Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine and again with a never-ending flood of Congressmen in Fahrenheit 9/11. The fact that Greenwald has produced his film without ever bothering to allow Murdoch or another Fox representative to respond to the charges renders the "documentary" little more than left-wing propaganda.Greenwald does score points with a handful of memos from a top Fox executive that appear to suggest tilting the news on such subjects as Iraq and the Sept. 11 investigation, and in interviews with a few former Fox staffers and contributors — three of whom are off-screen and anonymous, their voices distorted.
But many of their allegations are hard to assess because they involve orders, or attitudes, by an unnamed "they" at Rupert Murdoch's network.
Article comments
1 - Hal Pawluk
That's a very biased list of books, Scott.
2 - Eric Olsen
yes, why the Sharp TV? Hmmm?
3 - Scott Pepper
It's all part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
4 - Hal Pawluk
It is the right wing supporting the media meergers and these have clearly reduced what Americans see and hear.
Besides Fox, Clear Channel springs immediately to mind.
The rules changes Colin Powell's son pushed through at the FCC are not a good thing.
5 - Scott Pepper
Yes, the evil Republicans have silenced all dissent from the left-wingers and we are living in a totalitarian neo-facist state.
6 - Mike Kole
I don't agree that there is less to hear and see.
As a kid, I had three network choices- ABC, NBC, and CBS. Since then, Fox has been added to the mix, along with the myriad cable networks. The radio has the same number or more stations. The internet, however, has made for an unprecedented amount of news and opinion.
Radio is the worst victim of merger and consolidation. Radio has been emasculated of local programming in favor of nationally syndicated programming. ClearChannel and a handful of others have eaten up the majority of independent AM stations, and FM to a lesser extent. Don't overlook NPR, who has done exactly the same thing as the ClearChannels of the world to thousands of community 10-watt and 100-watt stations.
What needs to be challenged is the FCC's ability to have any say in the matter of media ownership and access to the airwaves. The premise of the airwaves as a public resource mandates that there will be a steward of that resource, and will call the shots on entry. It ensures that the players with the most money are the ones able to get into the game. That means big business and big quasi-government non-profit orgs will continue to dominate radio for years to come, until the FCC is either scrapped or de-fanged.
The current system ensures that no matter if Democrats or Republicans are running it, merger consolidation will take place.
I really don't mind the bias of Fox any more than I mind the bias of NPR. Let these entities say their piece. But let as many voices into the market as possible and remove the artificial roadblock known as the FCC.
Look to the internet for a better model. As long as it has been unregulated, anyone can pop up a website and show whatever they want to. There are endless choices here for opinion and news. This stands in stark contrast with radio, where you see the result of the heavy regulation by the FCC.
7 - Hal Pawluk
Yes, the evil Republicans have silenced all dissent from the left-wingers and we are living in a totalitarian neo-facist state.
That, too, my son.
Except that try as they might, they can't quite do it.
Perhaps after they stop the Presidential elections later this year ...
8 - Mark Saleski
i don't mind fox news being biased either.
it's just kinda funny when they toss around that 'fair & balanced' hooey.
9 - Hal Pawluk
The current system ensures that no matter if Democrats or Republicans are running it, merger consolidation will take place.
Not even close.
The current situation has become a major problem during the Bush administration and with the appointment of Michael Powell as the Chairman of the FCC (bringing the Commission to three Republican's and two Democrats). The Senate and House, including members of both parties, share in the blame.
When Powell was appointed, a number of large media companies had already exceeded the existing ownership limits in a number of markets Rupert Murdoch being the biggest offender.
The Bush administration's solution was not to sanction the rule-breakers, but instead to have Powell (and his Republican minions on the commission) issue a new rule raising the ownership limits to 45% from 35%. Since Murdoch was at only 39%, this was cool with him.
It wasn't cool with many moderates in both political parties and the huge fuss raised got the Senate and House involved. They, champions of the citizenry that they are, jumped in and rolled the limits back. Yes they did! To exactly the percentage that News News needed to get a free pass for their violations.
Certainly many Democrats have taken part in this, but all the recent media mergers during the Bush administration would not have happened during a Democratic administration, and it's possible that News Corp would have been required to divest some of its holdings.
The availablility of the Internet doesn't solve anything vis a vis media consolidation, as most people have very little to do with the Internet when it comes to news.
See also:
MURDOCH, MOLDING MEN'S MINDS, AND THE FCC SELL-OUT
BIG MEDIA 1, SENATE & HOUSE 0
10 - Eric Olsen
there are plenty of media shills on both sides of the aisle - both Mike and Hal make some very important points
11 - Mike Kole
Hal-
What about the premise of the FCC control over ownership?
Do you think it would be a different situation here if, say, the radio band weren't artificially constricted at 87.9 and 107.9? If the band could be broadened as far as the technology could allow, an enormous number of stations could crop up to fill the gaps.
I am in agreement that the FCC has accelerated merger mania under the Republican Executive, but am firm that it was very present under the Democratic Executive. (It's a corallary argument to spending. Democrats spend at high levels, but Republicans aren't exactly eliminating spending when they have the chance to. They merely tend to spend at a slower rate. Still spending, though.)
12 - Hal Pawluk
What about the premise of the FCC control over ownership?
I guess that answer to that depends on where you stand on fascism, which Mussolini defined as the merger of state and corporate power.
If you believe, as the current Congress and administration often appear to, that Mussolini-style fascism is okay you'll side with Michael Powell and move things further along in that direction.
If instead you think that government is supposed to be working for the benefit of the citizenry rather than corporations, you'll support the FCC control over media ownership and try to get it to do its job.
He did get the trains running, though, didn't he?
13 - Mike Kole
See, I don't believe in either of the choices you supplied (fascism, or socialism), precisely because giving the government any authority at all in matters of ownership can spiral into this kind of situation. The common good is a subjective thing, and the 'fascists' as you describe them, are currently working for the benefit of the citizenry, as they believe.
In a true free market situation, each owner of each station can set forth independently their own vision of serving the public, with wild variations and choices available. This is what I want.
14 - Hal Pawluk
In a true free market situation, each owner of each station can set forth independently their own vision of serving the public, with wild variations and choices available. This is what I want.
That sounds great, but it will never happen.
This administration's media consolidation speed-up has taken us further and further from your utopian ideal into Mussolini's "corporatism."
That's not my vision of America, the land of the brave and the free.
And as far as free markets go, they're over-rated and haven't worked without some guidance and control through regulation. The theoretical "invisible hand" is a nice conceit, but more often does not exist in the real world because of an inherent characteristic of people and corporations: self-interest being manipulated by entities with different levels of power.
But that's a whole other topic.
15 - Sydney
Though that was a biased list of books, both right and left, does one thing not seem really obvious: that fox news is a very partisan right wing organisation, far beyond the point of any objectivism?
I mean I think all media is right wing biased (right of my left anyway), but fox is just using rhetorical techniques that are so transparent that it ammounts to a flat out lie. I don't see why right wing people try to defend them. Why not find somthing more credible to stand up for.