War of Words Over Fox News Sex Video

I posted a piece about Brave New Films' new short film, "Fox Attacks: Decency", on Monday. In the piece, I disagreed with BNF's tactic of petitioning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for "a´ la carte" cable as a way to oppose Fox News.


Imagine my surprise when a Brave New Films staffer contacted me, via the comments section, about my article. They wanted to know if I would be willing to post their response. I said I preferred a little back and forth to a one-sided response, and Shazam! I got an interview with Robert Greenwald, director of "Outfoxed" and the driving force behind BNF. In the interest of fairness, I also contacted Fox News seeking an interview. A Fox News spokesperson, who was gracious and very conscientious about getting back to me quickly, had this to say: "Is Greenwald still alive, or is it just his career that's dead?"


Here's the video in question, and my interview with Robert Greenwald follows. I guarantee you, he's very much alive. I interviewed Mr. Greenwald for about 40 minutes, so I will excerpt some of it here. The full interview will be available at the end of this post and in the next one.

Tommy Christopher: How does Brave New Films make money?

Robert Greenwald: BNF doesn't make money, but it's constantly raising money...(from) our supporters...for the short pieces we're doing now we have almost 2,000 subscribers who give us $10 or $15 a month...also from higher net worth individuals...The Democracy Alliance, and we are approaching, and getting some support from, foundations.

TC: What did Fox ever do to you? Did they kill your dog or something?

RG: (laughs) I really love this thing called Democracy. I think it's Bob McChesney who says that the news in a democracy is critically important. In totalitarian society, people know that the news is not to be trusted, but in democracies, people rely on it...Fox has taken right wing opinion, and called it news, and that's both a travesty and a tragedy in terms of democracy. Part of my mission is to make clear that that's what they are doing...We went from "Outfoxed", the film which was a year, to now, we're putting out the short pieces in a couple of weeks, so that they can run, but they can't hide.

TC: CBS was long considered the most conservative network, and nobody gave a crap. Isn't Fox entitled to it's editorial philosophy?

RG: They are...in the way that a newspaper is, which says, "This is an editorial." But that's not what they do. What Fox News does, to their everlasting shame, is...take news stories...and their point of view is a political point of view within the story, number one. Number two, the so-called "experts" they have on are a joke...no credibility and no credentials...Number three, the decide to cover or not to cover stories based on whether they support or do not support their political viewpoint. There's no other news agency other than Pravda, maybe, (under) Stalin that does that with such consistency.

TC: Maybe, but who gets hurt?

RG: Democracy. Remember there are all these studies that show that people who watch Fox, and think they're getting the news, are the most ignorant about factual information...the highest percentage on Fox believe there were WMD,...believe there was an Al Quaeda/Saddam Hussein connection, but worse than that, by...pursuing a story that supports its political agenda, they in the past have gotten the other news organizations to do the same.

TC: Are the clips in "Fox Attacks: Decency" cherry-picked? What's the real proportion of this kind of material?

RG: If you go to the website, you can see several hours worth of smut...this is a designated audience-grabbing effort by Fox News to play to their audience, which is older guys in their fifties? Sixties?...with constant use and exploitation of women's bodies and...not covering the Iraq war.

(At this point, I summarized the objections to a la carte that I raised in yesterday's article.)

RG: It's certainly a legitimate question, but I believe one could suggest the exact opposite, that if people were paying for what they wanted, the passionate audience (for those channels)...might in fact allow them to survive and thrive. In the age of media consolidation, what we are getting are the shows that Rupert Murdoch (or) Time Warner wants us to take...people should have a choice, and with that choice, those shows that speak to an audience...should have a reasonable chance in the marketplace, and this actually is a place where I find myself sounding like a conservative..I trust the marketplace more than I trust 3 or 4 media companies who are... telling me what I can watch.

TC: In my view, this will lead to lowest-common-denominator programming.

RG: Remember, in theory, (with a la carte) you're paying to have the programming that you want and I prefer that...people make that choice rather than Rupert Murdoch. Perhaps neither is ideal...

(He is called away, then calls me back)

RG: They (MSNBC) just called me, they want me to do the 6 o'clock news, Judith Regan just filed a lawsuit saying that Fox told her to lie about Giuliani, so...as I was saying, it may not be ideal, but I would rather have consumers making the choice that Rupert Murdoch.

TC: In the interest of full disclosure, I'm gonna slam that in my piece, so...

RG: I have seen the disaster that has come giving the Murdochs of the world control over what we see.

Here's the slam: This is a classic straw man. There aren't only these 2 choices, Murdoch or mob rule. This problem can be solved without sacrificing programming diversity. See my earlier piece.

TC: Being a filmmaker and a progressive, isn't it counter-intuitive to be raising decency issues with the FCC?

RG: I'm not. The "ask" is to the FCC for a la carte...it's not to censor..to fine..to pull them off the air for that, I would be totally wrong if I did that,..that's why we very carefully evaluated and made this "ask"...

TC: But you're using "decency" as a catalyst for this.

RG: I'm using the ability to choose what you have in your home as a catalyst...people should have a choice..but I am not saying it should be censored. It's exactly the opposite of that.

TC: It's a pretty fine line to dance on...

RG: I don't see that at all, we spent a lot of time analyzing this, I said "I don't want to go to the world and say "Censor them." we said "Give people a choice."

I believe that Robert is missing the point here. We moved on, but I compare his argument to someone saying, "I'm not pro-starvation, I'm just anti-farming." In other words, I don't think he sees the unintended consequences of this, but I guess that's why they're unintended. While technically not making a decency complaint, he is clearly raising "decency" as a Golem to slay Fox News, in my view. I mean, it's the title of his film!

TC: You mentioned, on Countdown, an effort to reach Fox advertisers. What are the specifics, what stage is that in?

RG: We'll have more details in the next day or two, but we are going to ask people to educate advertisers as to this element of Fox. (People should watch) Foxattacks.org for more details.

TC: Have you done anything on LGBTQ issues?

RG: Yeah, we did a "Don't ask, don't tell" piece.

TC: Do you have anything new on the Real Rudy:Radios/ Councilman Gioia piece?

RG: We are waiting to hear the dates from Councilman Gioia, so hopefully, in the next couple of days, we will have an announcement on when the hearings or the investigation will begin.

TC: Waiting to hear if and when they'll begin, or just when?

RG: We assume they are going to begin, and we're waiting to get the date.

The remainder of the interview was mainly on the topic of Rudy Giuliani, which I will cover in a separate post. Highlights include:

What would Robert say to Rudy if he met him on an elevator? (Hint: it's not "Third floor, please.")

What plans does Brave New Films have for the non-Fox Hack-o-sphere?

Robert on ENDA, FISA, and Mukasey. Stay tuned.