I'm not very good (in fact, I'm quite terrible) at explaining how a film succeeds or fails visually. I'm better at talking about the themes or the ideas behind it. In the case of Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (hereby referred to as simply Outfoxed for the sake of brevity), however, I simply cannot get past the look of it. The director Robert Greenwald apparently makes all kinds of movies like this. He's a "guerilla documentarian." He wants to make them quick and cheap and get them out fast. But to call the film abrasive doesn't quite do it justice. Greenwald delivers his message by spray-painting it on the walls in a drippy bright red. He gets your attention by pissing on your shoes. The film is made up of basically three building blocks: interviews with learned "media experts," edited footage taken directly from the Fox News Channel (and occasionally a few other sources like "The Daily Show"), and grotesquely primitive computer generated title cards. I realize that this material makes use of cinema verite-like stuff impossible to incorporate, but without it the film is dead. You can't find a jolt of electricity or a drop of blood in the whole damn thing. Outfoxed is utterly void of any filmmaking excitement; it seems to be almost designed that way. When they bring out "Layla" and use it to score the media experts chattering on about how we need to take back the airwaves, you begin wanting to throw your shoe at the screen. There is absolutely no reason to use Layla like that post-Goodfellas.

The filmmakers' decision to make Outfoxed a decidedly acinematic experience affords them an ineptness that we wouldn't have stood for otherwise. The image is occasionally wobbly; one of my student films that I shot on digital did this exact same thing (I think that it's a problem of exhausted and overused tape). The use of dissolves to hide jump cuts in the interview segments also reminded me of some other people's projects. I never did this simply because I would rather have my left testicle chewed off than include interviews in my projects. I hate doing interviews; I always think that I come out sounding like an idiot, and also interviews are often times visual dead air and a primitive method of providing information to the viewer. But if I did have interviews, I would at least attempt to work in cutaways. It's rare that they have somebody talking over video. I have to admit that it's paced very well and none of these people talk too much, but they should have worked and thought through the editing better so that there doesn't need to be a trade-off. The filmmakers also happily use all the transitions in the Final Cut Pro library. Professors Penny and Dean Byrne are likely prematurely spinning in their graves. The titles probably wouldn't have pissed me off nearly as much if they weren't combined with the "creative" transitions. The movie looks cheap and obviously edited on a computer.

The DVD comes with a featurette where we get a look at the people behind the scenes. This is an area probably best left unexplored. Some of these people look like they belong in a Fellini movie. One guy looks like Dana Carvey's human turtle in the probably best unseen Master of Disguise. He's a gaunt, four-eyed bald albino. My wife and I couldn't decide if he had cancer and was going through chemotherapy or if he was simply vegan. The rest of them? Well, the term "aging hippies" pretty much covers it. Menopausal middle-American women mostly, perhaps trying to relive or reawaken the vein of social activism that has long since left them behind. I wouldn't even attempt to score such cheap points if it wasn't for the fact that the film mentions that Fox News Channel pits the charming, attractive, authoritative Sean Hannity against the "squirrelly" and weak-willed Alan Colmes. The behind-the-scenes featurette and the film's visual aesthetic firmly place the American left in the socio-political periphery. Outfoxed is a depressingly unattractive movie made by depressingly unattractive people. The filmmakers position themselves that way. They don't think that they will triumph because their message is superior to their alternative, or certainly not because they reflect the feelings of most Americans. They will succeed simply because their shit smells worse than anybody else's. It's nearly a Dadaist piece, as cynical and as a primitive as drawing a moustache and goatee on a postcard of the Mona Lisa.

An entire segment is devoted to the Jeremy Glick episode of "The O'Reilly Factor." Glick was invited to appear on the program after Bill O'Reilly saw that, shortly after September 11, Glick had signed his name on a formal protest accusing the United States of terrorism. What really upset O'Reilly was that Glick's father died in the World Trade Center attacks, and he still held onto this position. Glick patiently explained that he held the Bush administration and the administration before him responsible for training and financing Al-Qaeda and wishes no more harm on the people of Afghanistan. O'Reilly wouldn't really let him explain himself and shouted over him, growling things like, "I hope your mother isn't watching this." When Glick accuses O'Reilly of exploiting the 9/11 victims, O'Reilly protests that's he's done more for the 9/11 families, by their own admission, than Glick ever could and so he should shut his trap. Glick says that O'Reilly doesn't represent him. O'Reilly responds: "I'll never represent you, and you know why? Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country." Glick shows nary a flicker of anger; the most he produces is a bemused sense of frustration. O'Reilly ends the interview, and as he goes to commercial, we see him gesture to security to get Glick out of there.

O'Reilly later says that Glick claimed that Bush orchestrated and planned the attacks of 9/11. He stressed that Glick made these claims without a shred of evidence, although of course O'Reilly never gave the opportunity for Glick to offer any. Glick went over the line, he says, and "spat on his floor." Glick gets into contact with Al Franken and asks if Franken can help him sue O'Reilly for slander. Franken's lawyer, reportedly, argued that in order to mount a successful slander suit you have to prove that O'Reilly knew that he was lying. O'Reilly lies so much and believes his lies so passionately that it's impossible to prove such a thing.

There is something enormously satisfying about this segment. "The O'Reilly Factor" is so tightly controlled and O'Reilly is such a talented debater, effectively eviscerating his opponents before they can even get their guard up, that it's inspiring to see somebody like Glick casually destroy him. Far from spitting on his floor, Glick was remarkably level-headed and considerate. It was Bill O'Reilly who was ranting and raving. In defending his actions and refusing anything remotely resembling an apology, O'Reilly is ignoring an essential contribution to his public defeat. This interview happened very very soon after September 11th. Glick's beliefs would have always offended O’Reilly, but during that particular moment of time O’Reilly lost it. He was vulnerable, and Glick was detached and removed enough to pounce on this and destroy him. O'Reilly's passionate outrage and refusal to let Glick talk is a failure on his part. Earlier in the film, we see O'Reilly claim that he only said "shut up" once to a guest in some five years. This is followed by a montage of him saying "shut up," sometimes to guests he's interviewing, but often not. (An easy complaint about Outfoxed: The film doesn't always follow the logic of discreditization down to the letter.) Those times where he says "shut up" in the context of a talking point or monologue are usually in reference to countries or celebrities speaking out against the troops or sometimes even the war. He says that they need to face the consequences (i.e. boycotts) or shut up. When O'Reilly says things like that it's not only a problem of him advocating measures preventing the free exchange of ideas, but it's a failure on his part. A failure as a proponent and even leader for the righteousness of his beliefs, as showing outrage like this infers that there is a damaging amount of truth to what the opposition is saying. If there wasn't, why couldn't he simply work on discrediting them? Why advocate them shutting up? The reason that Glick wins and O'Reilly loses here is that Glick does not look like he fears being discredited.

We first see Glick in interviews shots for the film; he's nebbishly Jewish and/or swishingly gay, casually belittling his opponent with a nasally whine under a Monica Lewinski beret. He can't be older than 25. Glick sets up the cheap thrill undermining this episode for us: "It was intimidating sitting next to him because he's really tall, and like dude he lords over you." The David and Goliath aspect of Glick vs. O'Reilly has a primitive appeal. It's fun to see the little guy gumming up the machinery and conquering the evil giant. At the end of the day, however, there remains something to be said about the fascist iconology embodied by the giant Bill O'Reilly and the Nazi state of the Fox News Channel. The heart of the man-against-machine conflict seems to say that men will triumph over machines because they are essentially spiritual beings. In the case of Glick vs. O'Reilly, the man is the refutation of spirituality. They attack the Fox News Network out of a desire to liquidate the powerful, the artistic, and all that exists beyond the flesh. When they comment about how Fox News evokes religion, it's hardly to argue that they are trivializing it. There is this cynical, secular, materialist quality to celebrating the nerdy boyishness of Glick over the deified masculinity of O'Reilly. Again, there is that sense of simply drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa, cheaply throwing rotten tomatoes from the outside.

Roger Ebert (summarizing Jonathan Rosenbaum, I think) writes about how some critics resent political content following them "into their womb of dreams." He was writing about the backlash against Michael Moore's Roger & Me, and I suppose that Outfoxed would represent the alternative, politics segregated from the womb of dreams. Moore demonizes his opponents, juxtaposing their atrocities with the awesomely slick plasticity of their public relations department. His films can be harshly depressing, but he believes in them and there is this actualized sense of good vs. evil that develops into something ethereal and cinematic. I believe Moore has a vision for America. I also believe that General Motors does, and the NRA does, and George Bush does. And the Fox News Channel does. Moore has something to work against. I don't believe that Greenwald and the filmmakers behind Outfoxed do. Or at least their vision is one where poindexters like Al Franken, Jeremy Glick, the human turtle and the menopausals represent grand human ideals. This film is utterly without a heart or a soul. It's unconvincing; from an emotional standpoint, we have no reason to leave the security and warmth of Fox News and shiver in the cold of the Dadaists.

So it's not much of a movie. What about the thesis of the piece? We're shown that the Fox News channel is not fair and balanced, that they get memos from higher up telling them how to handle stories, that they make their employees sign confidentiality agreements before leaving, that they thinly disguise opinion by preceding their statements with "some people say," and as we have mentioned before, that the liberals they put on their shows are weaklings. They are designed to lean toward the right. The most severe charge that the film makes is that people who watch Fox News actually know less about the world than people who get their news elsewhere. The interviewees in the film suggest that Fox News impedes the democratic process through all of the above. Well, I'm not sure that I would go as far as to disagree, but there are several perspectives curiously ignored by the interviewees in this film and seemingly by the body of journalistic ethics as a whole. Now, I think that the news should always be accurate, but as far as all the other aspects -- objective, in good taste, relevant, et cetera -- I am more open-minded. We talk about covering news that you don't want to know, but that you need to know. Oh, and news and entertainment are, or should be, strictly segregated. This implies that you have no choice but to listen to us, that the news media will strap you to a chair and force you to consume information Clockwork Orange style. The idea of news that you need to know and not what you want to know flies explicitly in the face of a free marketplace of ideas. Obviously if it was news that you did not want to know, you would be able to turn the channel.

Following that concept, ethics is proportional to power. If great power requires great responsibility, it would follow that little power requires little responsibility. Does Fox News have enough power to necessitate that they follow an advanced code of ethics? Well, I don't really know. At least if Fox does have power, this is not something that they took as their birthright. I do not believe that people are forced to watch Fox News by virtue of Rupert Murdoch's wallet. I don't believe that he bought his way into the hearts of the American public. The success of the Fox News Network is attributable to simply providing their consumers with a product that no other news network does.

Rather than just explain how Fox News succeeds, look at how CNN fails. CNN is a news channel made by old people for old people. Stylistically, you realize that it is little more than a 24-hour version of your local news: news anchor, news package, news anchor, news package, elevator music playing over the commercial bumps. The talk shows are mostly low-key, chatty and friendly. Even something like "Crossfire." In contrast, the Fox News Channel is always crackling. If they did not pioneer the use of the continuously revolving news banner, it at least feels like they did. This banner eliminates the division between the anchor news and the packaged news, and ties in all their programs into one ongoing experience. It genuinely feels like a 24-hour news network; you get the sense that it plain never sleeps.

You may actually find yourself watching more Fox News as a result of Outfoxed. They point out all the techniques that the channel employs, and you find yourself noticing them when you watch it. I think I would maintain that Fox News was always a blast to hate, but now I find that I'm more inspired to jeer than before and doing so has become much more satisfying. The Fox News experience becomes something almost akin to camp. I love to hate the goat munching Bill O’Reilly. I love to hate the cowardly wussy Alan Colmes. I love to hate that cunt Linda Vester on “Dayside." I love to hate her beautiful puppy dog eyes as she casually spouts the most repulsive right-wing propaganda possible. My hatred for the people on Fox News gets me high as a kite; it’s better than coffee. I instinctively reject the idea that the news needs to be shredded wheat. If it's shredded wheat, I just plain will not watch it; I do not actively seek out experiences that will not edify, titillate or otherwise excite me. Whatever else you think about it, the Fox News Channel is not shredded wheat. That’s the threat that it poses to other journalists; it assumes that the news media has no intrinsic power and freely gives us what we want and how we want it.

In the journalism major we are not trained to just be journalists; we're trained to work in the mass media. Mass media of course, can mean books, internet sites like this one, and grassroots documentaries like Outfoxed, but for my purposes I’m mainly talking about television and major city newspapers; you know, the media that we assume EVERYBODY watches and reads. The mass mass media. I don't think that any of my peers has ever said that they want to start their own newspaper or their own news show. Ever. They want to get hired by somebody else. That's probably the single most depressing thing about this major. The second is that you can overwrite and even over-research a story. The teachers brag that it's harder to write short than write long. As you can tell from this review, which will be 2,802 words long by the time that I finish this sentence, this grates me much more than it would my peers. The idea is that you have to be tight and clean, and you have to get the most important information first. There is a sense of hypocrisy in this attitude of course; how do you establish what is important without catering to your subjective experiences (non-objective) and/or the tastes of your audience (news as entertainer and giving what is wanted and not what is needed)? But then again, I suppose that you can argue that tight and clean informs better than fat and sloppy. There’s another point that we need to make regarding tight and clean, however. The mass media, by definition, does not have the time or inclination to provide any in-depth information on any particular event. We’re on the go; information has to be clean, neat, and easily digestible. Even under the loosest criteria of objectivity, they are also unable to provide any historical, sociological, political, moral, spiritual, or philosophical context for any particular event. It’s hard to do that and still be clean and neat. The Fox News Network is clean and neat incarnate, and I would agree with Fox News’ critics that superficiality combined with partisanship makes for a volatile mix.

There is a segment in Outfoxed dealing with how Fox News called the 2000 election in favor of Bush. This decision was followed by the other news media until it was decided that the election was really too close to call. They argue that Fox still announced Bush the winner, and the recount was conducted with the feeling across America that Bush was already the elected president. The idea is basically that George Bush was elected by the Fox News Channel, that he is the first Fox-elected President. I believe that George Bush will win this election. It’s not because Bush plays better on TV; Kerry is far more confident and comes off much cleaner. But Bush is legitimately superficial and Kerry is not. Kerry isn’t as much a flip-flopper as much as he has a relatively complex view on the war in Iraq. And yes, he did vote against military appropriation bills, but he was also voting against a lot of pork barrel spending attached to those bills. But there isn’t any room in television to make those kinds of distinctions. Whatever you think of George Bush, it’s not nearly as easy to misrepresent him as it is to misrepresent Kerry. It’s not the slickness of Fox News that will elect George Bush, and it’s not even its right-wing agenda. Bush will be elected because he is more in tune with the sampling nature of TV. You just need a little bit of George Bush to know what a George Bush is, but you need a whole lot more John Kerry to find out what a John Kerry is.

To the degree that Fox News is a problem, I feel that there are two solutions. The first, obviously, is to introduce a left-leaning cable news station that is similarly entertaining and accessible to the casual viewing public. This is better than simply bitching about Fox News, this is appreciating that what they do works. (I can assure you that liberals piss me off almost as much as conservatives, but like I said, I love the sensation of being pissed off.) The second (and this is far easier and more practical from the perspective of the information consumer): beware of all mass media. Fox’s talk shows are propaganda, but they don’t make up their stories. I don’t feel that any of the mass media does; if the details are wrong (or rather, questionable), the big picture is accurate. Use it then as a guide. Get a basic outline about what is happening and then go out and learn more. Read books, watch documentaries, subscribe to magazines, and surf the web. Spend some time getting the bigger picture. Television can’t help being shallow, it’s that way by design, but there are many other forms of media that are able to go into great depth. These sources will not be objective, they will not show both sides, they will be partisan and they will wear this partisanship on their sleeve. Look at both sides. Basically, it’s not the responsibility of the media to inform you, it’s their responsibility to be noticed. The responsibility to be informed is yours and yours alone. The charge brought up in Outfoxed is that Fox News impedes democracy. This is utter bullshit. Citizens who refuse to participate in democracy by only listening to the juicy tidbits impede democracy. Fox News should be treated as great entertainment and as a starting point for information. Nothing more and nothing less.