Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

This documentary confirmed my worst suspicions about Fox "News". As a European in the US I was shocked to watch biased, unresearched vitriol spew out of a channel which then sanctimoniously called itself a news channel. The documentary shows employee after employee confirm what most in the industry already know. Interference with news content, selection and misrepresentation of news content, presentation of opinion as news content. Murdoch makes Citizen Kane look like a saint. Unfortunately, this is not a movie, it is for real. It is not much of a democracy when one man (Rupert Murdoch) can decide the presidency of the United States. (And he not even a US native).

When I was at university, it was the left-wing politicians who spun the best propaganda. They wore cooler clothes, had better slogans and made up bright snappy posters satirising 1950s domesticity (in itself a form of propaganda). But if 1967 film The Battle of Algiers is a training manual for terrorists, consider Outfoxed, the new documentary about Rupert Murdoch's Fox News cable channel, a how to for right-wing misinformation.

Rupert Murdoch is up-front about his goals for Fox – America's most watched cable network – to promote conservative values. Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism demonstrates just how fundamentally this distorts the truth, misinforms the public and compromises the integrity of any journalist employed by Fox news. Government surveys show that of all news consumers, Fox viewers had the most inaccurate perceptions of the truth – for example one-third of them believed that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

Fox's slogans include "Fox News – Fair and Balanced" and "We Report – You Decide". Does the second one remind you of anything? That's right, the ABC's CNNNN, who more accurately transformed the slogan into "We Report – You Believe". I never realised that CNNNN's Firth Factor had a real-life counterpart, Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, and was nauseated by Bill O'Reilly. He's the most biased and aggressive shock jock I could envisage, who disrespects the truth and annihilates any guest who dares disagree with him. In comparison, Jeff Kennett in his heyday was as innocuous as a little fluffy kitten. In the US, most Fox viewers wouldn't even understand that CNNNN is a comedy.

Outfoxed is an argumentative essay rather than an impartial examination of the truth, but considering the propaganda machine it's taking on, how could it be otherwise? What's so impressive about this film is its pace. In a rapid-fire 77 minutes, filmmaker Robert Greenwald interviews dozens of former Fox employees, media analysts, and intersperses it with Fox footage to prove his points. Not only is the film jaw dropping, but it's as entertaining and shocking as anything the Fox behemoth could pump out. It made me cry. *****/***** stars.

The documentary, although flawed (which republican is going to actually view it with an open mind...?), has some major points and the annihilation of "journalism" as it is known elsewhere is made obviously.

What comes out as obvious is the fact that, as a person puts it, this form of control is even more vicious than authoritarian governments: leaving the people "free" of believing that they are indeed free and well informed is a machiavelic way of control. What is sad is that it works so well.

Watch it, just so as to make sure you never watch Fox (ever or ever again).

I remember the first time I was confronted with Fox News, and their "news" content. At the time I was studying media in England and had read quite a bit about Rupert Murdoch's impact on global media, and how he was believed to have been boasting Thatcher and Thatcherism in the UK tabloid press when she was prime minister. As well as part of my studies we had been covering the subject of objectivity in news, and how this in actual fact is an impossibility considering that any process of selection will result in some degree of subjectivity. This does not necessarily mean the news journalists will be lying to promote their own opinions, but the process of selecting what to put emphasis on will easily result in supporting one ideology over another. As coming media journalists we were made aware of the subjectivity involved in everything down to the selection of which images to show and which not to when in the editing suites. Credible news journalists will necessarily have to be their own watchdogs, and be aware of his/her own perspective and thereby able to stop him/herself if portraying something inaccurately to boast the impact of the news story.

The first time I had a look at Fox News was soon after the 9/11 attacks. The terrible events of this day was very much featured in all the world media, and I was following the coverage from various media institutions studying the way they all approached the subject. It was very interesting to see how every channel reported the news in a slightly different way depending on the supposed ideology of the target audience. I even found variations according to time of day and day of the week. Naturally I was curious how the American media was covering this as well.

When confronted with Bill O'Reilly for the first time, I was simply wondering if this would be the last day of work for this guy, as he was throwing all of the responsibility one has as a news broadcaster out the window. Within only an hour of watching Fox News I had numerous notes on big "no no's" being performed right in front of me. If there was only one glitch, I would have been less shocked, being confident that the person responsible would be called into the producer's office for a serious talk. However, the charade just continued on and on, and I was shaking my head in despair wondering if ANYONE would actually take this as news. None on this network seemed to even attempt not to blurt out subjective comments, and covering all aspects of the conflicts seemed to be something none of these "journalists" was even considering.

Even though all news I had been following had variations, Fox News stood out as the absolute extreme by far. I guess most of Europe and especially those who have gone into the subject studying media, has known about this for quite some time already. Therefore I believe Outfoxed is a very important film for America, shedding light on some very questionable developments in the commercial media over there. This is a documentary, which means it's arguing a point opposed to what news media is supposed to do. It builds on facts that have been apparent for years, so the argument put forwards does have a strong root in reality, however harsh the critique might be perceived.

One does almost get a feeling this is too bad to be true when watching Outfoxed, but as any media knower will point out – American media and also Hollywood (producing films like Rambo) has for a long time been questioned in terms of attempting to lead their audience's opinion and obscure the perception of reality. I believe watching documentaries like Outfoxed results in big sighs of relief around the world, as it finally seems also America is realizing and focusing on these issues. Thumbs up to those who dared to make this documentary, and a pat on the back to those who has watched it and realizing the seriousness of the issues raised.

As with FARENHEIT 9/11 (2004), I will split this review up into two parts. One, the technical part, and two, the political part.

The movie itself is well made, even though the first 20 minutes or so have a bit of sloppy editing. Too fast clips make the text a bit hard to read. The interviews are often cut, which can be seen as a "shift" in the interviewees position, but this is not always clear. Usually, when making such editings, you make a white flash to indicate that you have omitted some words from this interview.

Particulary in this movie this is very important, since the whole issue here is FOX's use of the words "fair and balanced". This documentary however isn't fair and isn't balanced, but then again, no documentary is. The moviemakers doesn't use, or even pretend, to say that this documentary is "fair and balanced", so they might get away with it, but I still believe they should make these things a bit clearer to the viewer.

Second, I must say that the length of the film (approx 1 hour and 20 minutes or so) is perfect. It is not too long and not too short. The moviemakers get their point through and in a very good way.

Where other filmmakers usually spend too much film on themselves, these guys let the FOX's material speak for itself. And does it work? Oh yes!

This film is so hilarious sometimes that one can only wonder if ANYONE with an IQ over 80 can take this O'Reilly guy seriously. He is a total jerk and treats everyone like trash, and most of what he says himself is either "shut up" or some lies. The fun part is the way this material is edited, since we can actually tell for ourselves that O'Reilly IS lieing. I had the most fun with the O'Reilly parts, but he is quite a character to make fun of too. Not much is needed, you just have to watch him and hear him and you begin to laugh. I haven't watched FOX "News" so I was stunned over the fact that they have someone that is so ridiculus on the air. O'Reilly is so embarrasing that if I was related to him in any way I would change my name.

The other part of this review, the political part: Obviously this movie is made and released in good time before the 2004 election. And it is quite obvious that the makers of this film doesn't like Bush, and that they like Kerry. With that said, I believe this film will hold better after the election than, say, FARENHEIT 9/11 will. This film will still be important after the election, and I think that is this movies strongest point.

It is quite clear that the techniques used by Murdoch in his FOX "News" channel is in many ways the same techniques Joseph Goebbels used when he was working for Hitler back in the 1930's and 1940's. Similarities like censorship, bashing of political sides they don't like, use of symbols, use of fear. I am not saying here that Murdoch or anyone associated with FOX are Nazis - I just say they use the same techniques to get their propaganda through.

And it is propaganda. Watching the FOX "News" material is quite shocking, especially the parts which deals with hard subjects like 9/11 and the Iraqi war. Not counting O'Reilly here (because no one can take that guy seriously anyway), the rest of the FOX "News" staff seems to give quite a good impression. This is where it gets dangerous, since they are literary saying the same things that O'Reilly does, but with a calm and intelligent voice that can't be ignored.

Murdoch and the Italian PM Berlusconi has also some interesting similarities. Even though Murdoch can't create his own laws, he seems to have a strong link to the US Government (especially if there is a Republican as President) which kind of grants him this power anyway. That is, of course, not free press.

And if the FOX "News" channel just said that they were Republican or Conservative or that they said that "we support Bush - not Kerry", then there would be nothing wrong with this, or at least very little.

But when FOX uses the words "Fair and balanced" and even have this as a logotype used in their shows and on their website with the impression that it is a registered trademark (!) - THEN it is something really wrong. That is actually a lie, and when a news network lies about something, what parts of what they say is true?

Obviously this is FOX' view. Intelligent people can, as FOX say, "decide" for themselves. And last time I was in the USA I only met intelligent people, so I wonder... Does anyone really take FOX seriously?

I give this documentary 8 of 10. It is interesting, fun and will still be an important film after the election. It is not perfectly edited and have some other issues, but overall, it is a good film that I hope many people watch, even if you don't agree with the point of view.