OutFooled

Like this film, I also have an agenda. As a conservative, I wish to
defend Fox News, and knew that this would be my reaction. However, I did
not think it would be this easy. I have paused it 10 minutes in, because I
don’t want to lose track of the plethora of inaccuracies and distortions in this
film.
(1) The film begins with the sinister proposition that Murdoch
is directly responsible for the news consumption of 4.3 billion people. Oh
really? As we discussed in class, with the growth in media options, people can
now avoid opinions and or subjects they do not like. No matter what
Murdoch’s actual reach, as long as he has healthy competition- which was
apparently not important enough to include in this film- people can and will
simply avoid his product. It is that simple. Even if Murdoch news
flow is biased, people who disagree simply will not watch. Here are the
actual figures from Journalism.Org:

Who Is Watching
Survey data have shown that there are some clear partisan
differences among those tuning into the three cable news channels.
According
to data from the Pew Research Center for the People and Press, CNN and MSNBC had
more Democrats tuning in, while Fox News’ audience leaned Republican.
Looking at party affiliation, CNN and MSNBC had nearly identical viewer
demographics. Almost half of both of their audience members were Democrats – 48%
for MSNBC and 45% for CNN. Independents made up about a quarter (26%) of
viewers, while Republicans took up the smallest share – 22% for CNN, and only
19% for MSNBC.
On Fox News, the trend was somewhat reversed. The largest
share of its audience – 38% -- were Republicans, followed by Democrats (31%) and
independents (22%).9

As you can see, it does not matter how many people you reach. People will watch what they want to watch. Further, the filmmakers are misleading in that the film is only about Fox News, which does not have an audience of 4.3 billion [Update: The segment about viewers knowing less is presented as evidence that the massive propaganda of Fox is succeeding when in fact it more likely a reflection of those who choose to watch Fox in the first place.]

(2)The sources presented in this film are atrocious. Cronkite is a big name, but he brings no proof to his statement that Fox News is biased. The filmmakers utilize the classic liberal source proof of conspiracy source [think of Loose Change...] the anonymous tipster. Very credible.
Further, because you find one local Fox channel that may have suffered several improper breaches of journalistic integrity is not proof that everything Fox does is poison... [Update from later on: It is very interesting that they cannot seem to find one conservitive that says Fox is biased... Only guys from Vanity Fair- because of course the left doesn't muddle stories- how vain.]

(3) Most disturbing is the Film's distortion of an everyday and necessary aspect of a news service into evidence of a propaganda machine in action; the editors prerogative to assign reporters to various stories. Is any news organization the prduct ofindependent reporters who cobble together random stories? NO! Outfoxed makes Fox's doing this into evidence of evil design... [Update: A hullablo is raised about covering Gay marriage because it is a cultural issue. Again, why can Fox not decide what it wants to cover. According to the thinking of this film, Fox News cannot win. If it does cover the story, it is right wing because it does not think that cultural issues are important. If it does not, it is left wing...

Here at minute 12:48:

(4) Distortion: Claim: Fox news has destroyed Journalism. Evidence is only presented from commentary like shows which never purported to be objective journalism.

() Another distortion: Bill O'Reilly says he has only told a guest to "shut-up" once, and the film then shows video of him saying shut-up in a variety of other context- trying to catch him lying, when in fact, he was referring to directing a shut-up at a guest. [Update: No matter what is or is not rue about O'Reilly, his status as a commenter means he is expected to say his opinion. Even if he is biased, or Hannity is biased, so is Keith Olberman.

(6) This is getting painful: I simply cannot believe that anyone can take this seriously. How can you claim that Fox is pro-Conservative by showing several positive clips of Fox coverage of Republicans; how is this evidence of a systematic pro-Conservative agenda? I need figures!!!! [Update: No evidence is presented in the film about the most serious and disturbing charge, that Fox takes orders from the RNC...]

(7) I don't buy that "some people say" is evidence of anything more then trying to introduce an opposite viewpoint

(8) HALLLULAKA! Finally, at 27:14, I see the first actual evidence that Fox may be biased, the ratio of guests on Hume's program. [Update: It was the first and only].

(9) The segment about Fear misses the point. Fox could be doing that to make money, so there is no proof it reflects on a political agenda.

(10) The segment about highlighting the positive in Iraq again misses the point. Fox was not making anything up- i.e propaganda- but rather highlighting things that were missing from the mainstream media. One can argue that Fox's coverage was a necessary reaction to everyone elses negative coverage of Iraq

(11) There comes a time in every left wing documentary that the Right wing becomes responsible for everything... today's candidate is the claim that Fox News's false prediction made Bush President.

(12) An outright lie in the film. MSNBC is trying to imitate Fox New's "conservitive" agenda. Apparenlty, nobody told Keith.

(13) Talk about hypocrisy: The film criticized Fox News for its edgy graphics. The implication was that Fox engaged in subliminal Conservative advertising. Yet what better example of subliminal advertising then then cheery music that accompanies the film's turn to "A Call to Action," after the doom-laden score for the rest of the film.

In conclusion, this film is wrong on many levels. First, the evidence presented is shoddy. I saw only one figure that proved Fox had any Agenda. I do no care how many pro-Bush clips you show me. How do I know that there are not as many pro-Kerry, democratic clips on Fox News? (I mean, there are not, but this is not how you prove it.) So to, no distinction is made between commentary shows and actual news coverage. Only in actual news coverage should bias be an issue. Otherwise, viewers are well aware they are getting a opinion
Second, the criticisms are hypocritical: All news organization choose which news they want to show. All news channels have shows that do not purport to offer news, like Bill O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes. If Fox is wrong, so is CNN. If the film offered any evidence that Fox News was controlled or affilited with the RNC, now there is a juicy conspiracy. But until then, Outfoxed is in no way far or balanced.