OutFoxed: How Rupert Murdoch Is Destroying American Journalism

[Guest guest]

http://www.alternet.org/stories/19199/

 

" OutFoxed " : How Rupert Murdoch Is Destroying American

Journalism

By Don Hazen, AlterNet

Posted on July 10, 2004, Printed on July 11, 2004

http://www.alternet.org/story/19199/

 

As " Fahrenheit 9/11, " Michael Moore's powerful

indictment of the Bush Administration, is influencing

millions of Americans in the heartland, " Outfoxed:

Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, " a devastating new

documentary that exposes Bush's biggest cheerleader,

opens this week in New York and San Francisco and will

be featured in thousands of house parties across the

country, sponsored by MoveOn.org on Sunday, July 18th.

 

" Outfoxed " demonstrates in painful detail how one

media empire, making full use of the public airwaves,

can reject any semblance of fairness or perspective,

and serve as the mouthpiece of right-wing

conservatives, fully relishing its role. Media critic

Jeffrey Chester describes the Fox News operation most

succinctly in the film: " Fox News Channel is a 24/7

commercial for the conservatives and the Republican

Party. "

 

Produced and directed by veteran Hollywood filmmaker

Robert Greenwald, " Outfoxed " puts on the screen, for

the first time ever, a gaggle of former Fox producers,

reporters, writers, and bookers who provide rich

background to life within the Fox media empire,

particularly how they were forced to push a right-wing

view or lose their jobs.

 

Fox's hypocrisy in the wholesale undermining of

journalism for political purposes was a major

motivation for Greenwald to make the documentary. " I

hope the film can serve as a catalyst to break the

silence about Fox News, " says Greenwald. " Virtually

all journalists know that it's a sham, that their

trademark 'Fair and Balanced' is a lie, and that in

addition, Fox is leading the charge to dumb down the

news, and to spend less and less money on news

coverage, and bleed it for every possible dollar of

profit... which relates to the larger theme of the

film: corporate control of the media and the problems

it brings up for a democracy. "

 

The film takes risks and breaks new ground, as Robert

S. Boynton in the New York Times Magazine reports: " No

one has made a documentary about a media company that

uses as much footage without permission as Greenwald

has, and the legal precedents governing the " fair use "

of such material while theoretically strong, are not

well established in case law. " The legal strategy,

should Fox sue, is still evolving, but Greenwald has

the brilliant theorist Lawrence Lessig, and Chris

Sprigman, a fellow at Stanford Law School's Center for

Internet and Society on the legal team.

 

Greenwald took a unique approach to making his

documentary. He put together a team of media

volunteers enlisted via MoveOn.org who monitored Fox

News 24 hours a day for months, and reviewed every

show to demonstrate its model for spreading the same

propaganda comprehensively throughout the network's

programming. A special " behind the scenes " portion of

the " OutFoxed " DVD highlights their work. (Greenwald's

Fox News monitoring team continues to follow and

document the network's bias.)

 

Relying on the work of his tracking team, Greenwald's

documentary provides the viewer with a primer on

propaganda techniques, documenting how the underlying

goal of creating fear and uncertainty in the minds of

viewers is achieved by use of language and repetition.

 

The documentary deconstructs Fox's hot button issues

like same-sex marriage, abortion, the constant

presence of God in the political context, and the

march to war in Iraq, and how these are seamlessly

inserted into the language, the visuals, and the

emphasis throughout the day. One of the most powerful

motifs in the film is Greenwald's effective use of

leaked " theme of the day " memos apparently sent daily

by John Moody, a senior vice president for news. These

memos provide the framework for the spin on the news

by the overall news operation. One memo warned: " Do

not fall into the trap of mourning U.S. lives. "

Another says of the Falluja seige: " It won't be long

before some people start to decry the use of excessive

force. We won't be among that group. "

 

" Outfoxed " demonstrates how the message of the day

gets repeated hundreds of times by the anchors –

virtually by rote – which must be an affront to all

who want to make up their own minds about current

affairs. And Greenwald proves

 

pretty clearly that critical thinking is not what Fox

News is about.

 

The documentary portrays Fox News' top host Sean

Hannity as a bully, and its biggest star, Bill

O'Reilly, a consistently documented liar with an anger

problem. In one of the most powerful moments in the

film, Jeremy Glick, a son of a worker killed in the

World Trade Center disaster, appears as a guest on

O'Reilly's show and takes him on, refusing to buckle

in to his berating. O'Reilly invites " liberals " on to

his show to turn them into punching bags, but in this

case, when the plan goes astray, he loses it,

threatening Glick with outlandish accusations, and

then pulling the plug on his microphone.

 

Al Franken does a funny bit referencing the

possibility of suing O'Reilly for libel for distorting

the character of Glick's comments in later episodes.

Franken suggests that Reilly lies pathologically, and

that lawyers have told him that it would be harder to

sue for defamation if someone already has a record of

outrageously lying. Interestingly, in 2003, Fox

brought suit against Franken and his publisher, EP

Dutton/Penguin, for allegedly infringing on Fox's

three-word trademark " Fair and Balanced. " The offense?

Franken's book, " Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell

Them " (which attacked Fox), was subtitled " A Fair and

Balanced Look at the Right. "

 

However, when Fox appealed for a preliminary

injunction, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin refused the

request – adding that he found Fox's lawsuit to be

" wholly without merit, both factually and legally. "

The judge also said that " [f]rom a legal point of

view, I think it is highly unlikely that the phrase

'fair and balanced' is a valid trademark. I can't

accept that that phrase can be plucked out of the

marketplace of ideas and slogans. "

 

Walter Cronkite heads a stellar group of more than a

dozen media critics in the film, ranging from cranky

Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders to David Brock, the

right-winger gone good, who offers some interesting

insights regarding how the conservative media echo

chamber works. Professor and media critic Bob

McChesney also makes a strong on-camera impression and

Jeff Cohen, who was a producer for the Phil Donahue

Show, talks about how the " Fox effect " – the temporary

success of the ranting right-wing television model –

moved MSNBC to the right. Cohen, who has had his share

of experience on " Firing Line " and other shows,

demonstrates his on-air savvy in " Outfoxed. "

 

Over and over again, we hear and see the overwhelming

evidence that Fox is a propaganda machine. But the

question remains: What can we do about it? In the last

section of the documentary, Greenwald's media experts

offer potential solutions, and have high hopes, but in

the face of the powerful Fox critique, the solutions

do not hold up as realistic. Many take heart in a

revitalized " media reform " movement in the country,

and in the fact that some part of the public clearly

is unhappy with the media system. But at the same time

that system is evolving into more and more ways for

people to get their news – an increasing number go to

the Internet (these, incidentally, are the best

informed news consumers), and some young people claim

that they learn the most from Jon Stewart's " Daily

Show " on Comedy Central. Greenwald personally feels

that " various forms of independent media must continue

to push the edges, go for the innovation, and from

that will come audience... the more the primary media

goes conglomerate... the more opportunities there will

be for independent media and other points of view. "

 

On the policy front, media reformers will continue to

lobby, file law suits, and fight admirably to slow

down the consolidation juggernaut, as they did

recently when a Philadelphia Court decision told the

Bush-controlled FCC that it had gone too far in

further consolidating an already centralized media

system. But this decision had little impact on

Murdoch, and there seems to be no viable path to put

Murdoch's propaganda machine on the skids.

 

In the context of what to do now, one contrarian point

to consider is that the influence of Fox News may be

exaggerated. Do we run the danger of making Fox News

appear more powerful than it is? The mainstream media

has accepted and promoted Fox's dominance of cable

news, but a closer look is needed.

 

For example, O'Reilly's show (or Larry King's for that

matter) would be cancelled in a week in network TV

because their audience is too small. The audience for

network news compiled by Nielsen Media Research Data

cited in the Annual State of the NewsMedia Report

shows that in November of 2003 there were a combined

total of 29.3 million viewers for the three nightly

newscasts. This means that network news still reaches

more than 12 times cable's prime-time audience of 2.4

million viewers. In other words, the nightly news

remains vastly more popular than the more adversarial

format of cable.

 

On the other hand, cable is more important than these

traditional ratings reflect. More people say they get

their news and information from cable than from

network news or anywhere else. And within the world of

cable news, Fox passed CNN several years ago to become

the most-watched outlet. Fox has slightly more viewers

than CNN and MSNBC combined, somewhere around 1.4

million an evening, in prime time.

 

Yet among those for whom cable is influential, CNN is

still the preferred source over Fox – despite Fox's

lead in audience. CNN also complains that Nielsen

ratings don't count the millions watching CNN in

airports and other public places. Also, despite huge

audience upticks with mega-events like 9/11 and the

war in Iraq, according to the Annual State of the News

Media Report, neither cable news overall nor Fox is

expanding their audience over the long run. Cable news

viewership overall is flat.

 

Cronkite says in the film that Murdoch never had any

intention except to build a right-wing network, and

neither he nor his media stars attempt to hide their

point of view. This partisanship is in part what some

people in the U.S. find shocking. In contrast to the

British, who have long endured the right-wing blare of

Murdoch-owned media, Americans are unaccustomed to

media as propaganda, especially on television. (Born

an Australian, Murdoch, by dint of approval by both

Republican and Democratic politicians, is now an

American citizen able to own media properties.)

 

Most media critics bemoan the impact of the rest of

corporate media for its lack of coverage of

troublesome issues, its aiming content and circulation

toward upscale audiences, its becoming overwhelmingly

jingoistic in time of war, etc. Yet most of what is

wrong with mainstream corporate media, when compared

with what's wrong with the blatant Fox, is somewhat

disguised. Is it possible that Murdoch is doing us a

favor by bringing media politics out in the open, and

forcing the rest of corporate media, often content to

hide behind an illusion of objectivity, to be more

aggressive in support of some of its values, or at

least be more feisty?

 

It may be coincidental, but it is interesting to note

that The New York Times recently added Barbara

Ehrenreich, probably the best essayist the American

Left has, to replace the centrist Thomas Friedman

while he works on a book in the lead up to the

election. Meanwhile, Graydon Carter, editor of

super-establishment Conde Nast's Vanity Fair is

publishing a book of his columns, many of which skewer

the Bush Administration.

 

So there is some awakening in the corporate media.

But, fundamentally, the Murdoch challenge for

progressives is to be able to respond in kind. It is

time to find a way to make media interesting from the

liberal/left side of the political equation. In part,

the " rush to the bottom " in terms of journalistic

standards and the " Foxification " of the news is

happening because there is little countervailing

weight on the other side. Essentially, there are no

liberals on Fox; everyone toes the line. Its partner

in crime, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, is

almost as bad. But every other major media company in

America goes out of its way to ensure that

" conservative voices " get their full due, with William

Safire and David Brooks on the Times Op/Ed page as one

example and The Washington Post filling its pages with

rabid pro-war voices in the run-up to the invasion of

Iraq as another.

 

Is it possible to have powerful influential out-front

liberal media that is well-funded and entertaining?

Michael Moore knows how to do it – more than 10

million Americans will likely see " Fahrenheit 9/11 "

before November. George Soros, a billionaire several

times over, says there is nothing more important than

beating George Bush in November. But Bush is just the

present symbol of a 40-year effort of the

conservatives to remake language, build powerful

institutions and have huge impact on the media. Fox's

success, indeed its very presence, would not be

possible without the hundreds of millions – some

estimate billions – of conservative philanthropy that

went into building the right-wing juggernaut.

 

George Soros could be a powerful antidote to Rupert

Murdoch, at least in the area of U.S. news coverage,

if he were willing to take the lead to seriously fund

a long-term electronic and internet media making

institution.* The potential progressive audience has

grown – start with Michael Moore's filmgoers, then add

in MoveOn.org's 2.2 million members, along with the

many millions who visit other progressive issue and

media web sites, the growing audience for Air America

(which is surviving despite being undercapitalized at

the beginning) and you have the makings of a 20-30

million viewer audience. Perhaps it is far-fetched to

imagine our own powerful progressive media, but there

are increasing indications it could make money over

time. We can demonize Fox all we want, and it deserves

it, but we're never going to be able to count on Clear

Channel, General Electric, Comcast, Disney, Viacom and

the other media conglomerates who control our media

destiny, to give us any kind of content that will hold

their most aggressive competitor, Murdoch's Fox, at

bay. That very well may be our challenge.

 

* The Soros-supported Open Society Institute helps

fund MoveOn.org and the Independent Media Institute,

parent organization of AlterNet.

 

Greenwald made " OutFoxed " in cooperation with the

Center for American Progress and MoveOn.org. He will

make use of the innovative model of independent

Internet distribution and house parties used so

effectively – with more than 100,000 videos in

circulation – with his previous film " Uncovered, " a

biting critique of the process that led up to the

invasion of Iraq. " Uncovered " is part of the " Un "

series, along with " Unprecedented " about the stealing

of the 2000 election, and the forthcoming

" Unconstitutional. "

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights

reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/19199/