Talk:Outfoxed

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Bias claims

The sections on this article ("Criticism") etc. seem to take a biased point of view concerning the film. Especially the sections relating to the criticism of the editing.

The film specifically states that Fox News takes a "conservative" slant concerning the news by, in part, espousing the views of conservative politicians, and snubbing the response of "liberal" politicians.

The fact that the editing is allegedly unclear regarding "who said what" ignores the basic premise of the film. In any event, the criticism should not be left there without a counter point.

- Agree with the above points and also question the POV of film reviews section. Generally, Outfoxed was well-received (see imdb or rottentomatoes.com). Now, to label the praise as being from "liberal film reviewers" is misleading. Who defines "liberal", anyway? Besides, the only way that this point would be valid is if mainstream (NY Times, Wash Post) reviewers identified themselves as liberal in their reviews. Generally, I doubt this was the case.

Outfoxed refers to 2 sepate things. Keep the disambiguation node. --06:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I think that the article is fairly well balanced in terms of how much is given over to claims and criticisms, although both look like they have been cribbed wholesale from other sources. I think that some minor tweaking would mean there was no need for the NPOV template, but that some cleanup and copyediting is needed. --Liquidindian 11:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To that end, I have rewritten the Criticism part, and removed the NPOV template. The original template was added because of subjectivity in saying that movie reviewers are 'liberal'. I removed the movie review part, as it isn't very relevant, and IMDB is subject to constant change.--Liquidindian 01:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone readded the cut-and-paste section, so I've reverted it. I think that the "allegations" part possibly needs some editing to improve it, but simply slapping in the statement from FOX verbatim isn't helping. --Liquidindian 03:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think sombody should post something about the publishing company and other information needed to cite the movie.

Added an info box, not sure if that's all the info, though.--Liquidindian 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the following:

"Not all agree with Greenwald's assertion that Fox News Channel is biased, and there has been criticism that the film is ineffective. There have been negative comparisons of Outfoxed to Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, with claims that Moore's film did a much better job at sourcing and interviewing. "

Sources? - BTAUS

As a general comment on the film rather than the article, I am amazed at how much footage of Fox News appears in it. I have no idea what the legal position is on such usage, but I imagine Fox would have prevented it if they could. Lee M 02:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV statement

Removed this line from after the Controversies/Criticisms section: "Despite these examples, the film shows overwhelming evidence that Fox News often reports such quotes freely and without rebuttal."

Blatant POV. Still, if someone wants to flesh out this section with responses to FOX and other critic's counter-arguements then go ahead. (Though not just your own opinion, obviously :). Edders 08:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the opening paragraphs be cleaned up?

Maybe others disagree, but I think that the introduction/summary to this article reads as if it were pulled straight from the film's own promotional material. It just reminds me of those articles that are copied, unchanged, from a person's own biography etc. Any suggestions for a more neutral re-wording? Edders 08:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, out of curiosity I typed "Outfoxed summary" into google, and sure enough, up comes the Outfoxed homepage with a summary from the film that is identical to the opening paragraph. Edders 10:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This NOT An Unbiased film

In the interest of keeping Wikipedia neutral, you cannot present this film as an unbiased film. Distributed by MoveOn.org!?! Go to IMDB and look at his works. He has an agenda - even if you agree with it. This is not a work of an unbiased person, and I think the criticism of Wikipedia’s bias comes from articles such as this. "Raising questions as to whether the movie itself was biased" is not an appropriate representation of the bias of this film. Before you damn me as a right-winger, I'm a moderate. Presenting this as "non-biased" is a disservice to the guys in the middle. This needs, at least, to be labeled as an attack on major media slanted toward the right but neglecting to site other news organizations slanted to the left. If Wikipedia does not wish to fall into being labeled left-biased media, then they need to keep articles like this under control. Two sentances about this film's bias? That's biased.

From Wikipedia... "Greenwald is often described as progressive and is closely aligned with Moveon.org." "The group (Moveon.org) aims to promote self-described "progressive" candidates and policy."

This needs to be represented fairly in the article with more than two sentances.

To label the film as "biased", you need to show not just that the filmmaker has an agenda, but that he reports the facts inaccurately to push that agenda. In other words, it's not an example of bias if it's true. 71.203.209.0 17:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the entire top point of this section all you did was express your own opinion (own bias if you will) however you showed no proof and just said it is basicly because of Moveon.org and Greenwald's career that this is biased and i quote "You cannot present this film as an unbiased film. Distributed by MoveOn.org!?!" MoveOn.org is yes a very left-wing website however that does not make it bias by saying that all you proved is that your bias against MoveOn.org bottem line is you have no facts to prove that THIS film is bias.--Riraito 08:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag

I added the cleanup tag since the first portion of the article is admittedly pulled from the sleeve of the documentary. I will seek to find secondary sources discussing the film, and would appreciate any help making this article more encyclopedic, e.g. removing the block quotes. We should also provide plot summary and spoiler warning to the article as well. Unfortunately, I have not seen the video, but if any editor has, and would like to add a synopsis, that would be appreciated. Ramsquire 23:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda films

Why is everyone riding me about this?

I don't have an agenda, as all the right leaning films I've put in the propaganda cat will show. I merely want a full listing of the relevant topics, or else the category would consist of little more than WWII newsreels and 50s exploitation films. Why is it so controversial that latter day American propaganda films. which touch on contrmpory debates, be excluded? It isn't POV, either. The FTA tour, Outfoxed, F9/11 all were films which had a clear policitcal and/or social agenda, why is it so difficult to admit that they are propaganda? (No one has ever raised objection to Stolen Honor, FahrenHYPE 9/11, or Michael Moore Hates America, btw).

That isn't my only reason for putting them in that cat, they all use selective editing and presentation of the facts, fail to show the other side, and try to be "entertaining" enough to lure in an audience. What other qualifications for propaganda could I possibly give?--Dudeman5685 20:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dudeman. Thank you for taking the time to lay out your thoughts on this issue. The problem as I see it is very simple: you have a very broad notion of what constitutes "propaganda", whereas many people feel that "propaganda" is a highly loaded term that should, indeed, only be used very sparingly. Clearly there is no true concensus on what is and what isn't propaganda -- and there never will be. That in itself should be a major red flag.

As you may recall, 2 months ago there were debates/discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion which resulted in the deletion of 3 sub-categories of propaganda films. By strong majorities, those who weighed in with comments were concerned that using the "propaganda" label for all of those films was highly NPOV, and therefore not appropriate. Those discussions are worth taking a few minutes to read, so here's the links to those pages:

Vietnam War films

Two discussions: Left-wing & right wing films

I made a point of including the "right-wing" films category, because, as you say, this isn't about a particular agenda, but rather about a consistent principle:

That pinning the "propaganda" label on a film merely because it has a strong POV is fundamentally wrong for Wikipedia, because for the vast majority of readers the term "propaganda" is highly pejorative.

That being the case, all of those films are, in a sense, damaged when they're tarred with that label. On the other hand, the only "damage" from NOT labeling a whole bunch of films as "propaganda" is that those Categories & Sub-categories will be sparsely populated.

In short, the desire to have "full listings" simply is not a good enough reason to slap an inherently disparaging label on dozens of films. Regardless of your personal views (which you are certainly entitled to), such labels simply have no place in Wikipedia.

I hope I've helped you understand why sticking lots of films in those categories is always gonna bother people. Cgingold 11:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased film. Biased article?

The film the article is about is obviously biased and targets Fox and Murdoch. One cannot insist the world take a NPOV. Unfortunately, the article seems to be promoting the film, rather than simply reporting on its existance. Maybe a lighter touch is needed?

James52 02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out earlier, the article is basically a copy-and-paste job of the film's own promotional material. Someone also added quoation marks around a part of the Intro to indicate what was taken from that material. In fact, it is the ENTIRE introduction, excluding the DVD bit, that is taken from the promo. Also, I've beefed up the criticism bit with Fox's own response. When I get the time I'll add the info from the Washington Post's article on the film (which contacted a number of those involved. It's linked from the Fox press release link) as a seperate part of the Criticism. Edders 16:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the content that was directly lifted from the promo material; it was repetitive, unnecessary, and made the article read too much like an advertisement. I also cleaned up the text where it was heavily weighted toward promoting the film as well. Alcarillo 23:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irony in Outfoxed

(Sorry I forgot to sign in when writing this section of the article.)

A problem with a lot of what's written about Outfoxed is that bias is at its most visible to those with the opposite bias --- the choir sees no bias in the preacher! One approach to avoiding bias is to avoid anything that might construed as nuanced, controversial, or open to interpretation. Hopefully my point in this section of the article, namely that the evidence put forward in the film supports only the Fox-as-Mafia hypothesis and not the Murdoch-as-Godfather hypothesis, is beyond controversy: if it is then the section should pass the NPOV test, if not then it should be deleted. Vaughan Pratt 09:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that text you included was more like a film review, which is your own opinion. That's probably why it was removed. Alcarillo 17:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"War" vs. "Invasion"

I changed "2003 war in Iraq" to "2003 invasion of Iraq." The reason is that the line refers to the "aftermath" of the event. The invasion took place in 2003; the war is still going on and therefore has no "aftermath". In addition, the Wikipedia article linked uses the word "invasion". Mordant Kitten 23:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a PAC.

Moveon.org is a PAC and it's liberal, see the links. Please don't weasel word it. If you have a different opinion please log in, or create an account and log in, and discuss it here. Hiding behind an anonymous edit is not the way to do it. --James52 03:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. This is an encyclopedia; vague terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' should be completely avoided, as they are extremely ambiguous and lack a globally accepted definition. These words used in the context of this article could easily fall into the category of partisan/bias, hence the (neutral) Moveon.org article itself doesn't use these terms. Opertinicy 05:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are not particularly vague. There are even articles about them. Whatever. It's still a PAC. This is from the moveon article: "MoveOn.org Political Action, a federal political action committee, formerly known as MoveOn PAC, gives contributions to candidates across the country to advance causes in Congress and help elect selected political candidates." --James52 05:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

Major editing

I just went through and cleaned up all the biased material on this article, as well as what I saw unnecesary information such as trivial things as taking a one page ad out in the NYT? On other movies you don't elaborate on what networks a certain movie advertised on so don't do it here either. It's more trivia. If you have problems with any of my edits please state so here. RYNORT (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have lots of problems with your edits. Your shortening substituted generalities for specifics, which is not a good idea. You also show little familiarity with WP:MOS, putting the lead section title in double quotes instead of bold italics, losing wikilinks, and so on. The problems with this article can be fixed without such drastic changes. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ad in the NYT is worth mentioning because of Greenwald's unusual distribution method; for a conventionally distributed film, you are right, it wouldn't be worth a mention. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would it or would it not be worth a mentionRYNORT 17:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole first paragraph is lifted text... why do you think I shortened it?RYNORT 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and if you could name one example of how buying an ad in a newspaper to promote a film is unusual. That'd be great! ( you obviously don't read newspapers)RYNORT 18:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greenwald distribution method is to release on DVD not theatrically, and then have politically allied groups (such as MoveOn) do advertising for the DVD. That's an unusual mechanism, and in that context the NYT ad is significant to note. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

leaving this article the way it is is horrible... i don't see what was wrong the way I had it... i'm about to change it back. It stated everything about the film that everyone would want to read. I think it's just you want to listen to your words in your head that you wrote (which most people agree that it sounds the best way, but it's not). Also sounds a tad sensational, a big no no on wikipedia. RYNORT 21:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the original article, so I'm not trying to protect my own words. While the film may be making sensational claims, the article itself is not sensational; you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between the two. And I've been an editor in Wikipedia a lot longer than you have, so you don't need to explain no no's to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sensational?!?!?! "The film examines the global growth of Murdoch's media enterprise" —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 22:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not sensational at all. Murdoch is a smart and successful businessman and his media holdings have indeed been growing. Concentration of media ownership is a legitimate issue that many people have commented on, not just this film. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags removed

I've removed the cleanup tag — it's been there a while and whatever it was referring to, I think has since been improved. I've also removed the pov tag — I think the article as it stands now is okay. It is not the job of this article to decide whether Fox News is a good thing or a bad thing or whether Outfoxed is "right"; the article just needs to describe the claims made by the film, describe Fox News' response, and describe the critical and popular reaction to the film. That it does. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your wrong on that.... it sounds to sensational

You wrote on my talk page that "WP:MOS is a joke" and that "writing in that type of format leaves room for sensationalism which contributes to an overall biased in the article. What I did do in the Outfoxed article was just list what went on and not my own words in it." First, WP:MOS is a style guideline that we all abide by; if you don't like it, find another encyclopedia to write for. Second, you still aren't distinguishing between what the film states about Fox News ("it's bad") and what the article states about Fox News (nothing, the article is just describing the film). Third, your grammar and English usage is horrible. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

other side of the review

You can't just put how good it was. We need someone with a counter position on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah? I wish this is true in all the conservative articles too. Speaker1978 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for 2 more cents. Didn't see where any "Omniscient Wiki Voice" stated "How Good It Was". It seems like a pretty straight recitation of what the film is, (Not whether it is 'Right-or-wrong') followed by critical reception of it's content, (Both Pro & Con)(Including Fox News' Denials of its assertions)...some minor sprinkles of rebuttals to the critiques. Even links to one of Murdochs "Major Organs"; (to wit- his spleen, The New York Post). I've seen the Film, this seems like this article covers all necessary bases, without going on too long. Also like the coverage of the "outside-the-norm-distribution-approach" --mbd--71.6.81.62 (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Attacks section

I removed the "Fox Attacks" section because it has a very limited relationship (if at all) to the film and it's mostly sourced to blogs and other self-published sources. It might be appropriate in the Greenwald article, but I'm making no determination on that. Just sharing here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouting 'Shut up! Shut up!' and Cutting off Son of 9-11 victim

How German wikipedia page describes this part of Outfoxed, translated by google:

Particularly negative while the moderators are Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity pointed out, the rude insult interview guests and just cut the word when they disagree with their opinion. As a particularly significant example an interview with Jeremy Glick O'Reilly is summarized. Glick's father Barry was with the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 were killed, and Glick had publicly opposed George W. Bush's war policy issued. It is not, this is the same, come the misfortune of flight UA93 killed Jeremy Glick . During the interview mentioned Glick that the US Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had supported in the past. O'Reilly shouted Glick then he should "keep the muzzle", insulted him and let him not to speak. In a later interview Glick stated that they had chased him out of the studio. [1] O'Reilly said that later falsely, Glick had claimed in the show, Bush was behind the attacks of September 11th.

This is consistent with [1] which notes that "During the interview, it was O'Reilly who called Glick's views "a bunch of crap"; O'Reilly who repeatedly told Glick to "shut up" before later telling staff to "cut his mic" staff which told Glick afterwards that he might want to leave the building because they worried O'Reilly would end up "in jail" if O'Reilly ran into Glick in the hallway. Glick is son of 9-11 victims but who dared to oppose Bush's invasion of Iraq. See also [2] which notes O'Reilly shouted "Shut up! Shup up!" twice in a row in response to Glick pointing out that that past U.S. foreign policy bore some responsibility for “training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically” the Taliban. None of this is given in the present version which distills all of this down to O'Reilly only "allegedly" having "attempted to intimidate guests with whom" he disagrees.

I would encourage editors to add detail. To be reasonable it doesn't have to be as detailed as the German version on the treatment of Glick. Not saying the German version if perfect. But it's better - and more accurate, than the current version. Harel (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]