Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

UnknownRealmsDotNet Fox has never been known for the its integrity or desire to improve society. That is probably why it has done so well. So it's no surprise that when it started a news channel that it would be any different. Outfoxed analyzes the channel and shows just how far off the mark this channel has become, how it has affected American society and why it is doing this. While the inter-cut titles and 'effects' make this feel a little amateur, the interviews and content put any questions to rest. Outfoxed is definitely not for the right wing crowd, conveying its facts with an agenda, but the off-kiltered reporting displayed is undeniable. A very interesting documentary.

billschweitzer Fair minded Americans agree that Fox News is an embarrassment to journalism. It is a network with absolutely no journalistic integrity, and does little more than to promote the right wing agenda in the United States.Outfoxed does an excellent job of exposing Fox News (as if it wasn't blatantly obvious) for what it really is: a propaganda driven network designed to push not news, but Rupert Murdoch's opinions. Outfoxed gives countless examples of the tabloid journalism and opinion reported as fact that Fox News has been guilty of since their first broadcast.Fantastic documentary. I would recommend this to all Americans who seek truth from their news media, instead of what amounts to little more than a parody of real news, on par with The Daily Show and Saturday Night Live, only to the other extreme.

Robert J. Maxwell Well, this is outright propaganda aimed at Fox News. It doesn't pretend to be anything else, and therein lies its superiority to Fox News as reportage and as a source of opinion.I've rarely watched Fox News and so can't comment in much detail on the target of this documentary. But from what I've seen, both on the Fox News Channel and in this film, I find it hard to argue against the proposition that Fox is corrupting our view of the universe.The received wisdom has always been that the media shape our opinions but that's never satisfied me because I can't see it as the entire explanation. Rather, I've always thought of the way we construct reality as a joint function of our news sources and the prejudices that draw us to one source rather than another. What passes for reality is in the interaction between ourselves and the information source. I think this is known as intentionality in philosophy, but it doesn't matter.I'm willing to make a major exception in the case of Fox News. As a "fair and balanced" source of information, it not only sucks in itself but it practically rots the mind of its viewers. Authoritarians and neoconservatives may be drawn to Fox like a moth to a flame, but, like the moth, they will find themselves and their brains fried to a crisp by continued viewing."Outfoxed" gives us a shallow history of how Fox News changed, rather abruptly, from a standard news channel to the number one promoter of the Republican Party that it is today. Mostly we see and hear talking heads, most of them former employees of Fox -- news producers, commentators, reporters -- some of them anonymous.Fox, and the administration whose semi-official spokesman it is, would have a ready reply. Disgruntled former employees, trying to sell books or gain their fifteen minutes of fame or taking revenge on an organization that had good reason to let them go.But the evidence presented in the film is so clear that it's hard to deny. One disgruntled employee, maybe, but a whole slew of them constitutes a pattern. And there are direct quotes from talking points (or "edicts" as one critic calls them) that come down daily from on high, instructing news writers in which events to harp on -- and how to harp on them.And yet, for all that, one has to admire Fox News in certain ways. It was really sui generis. An almost perfect blend of eye-catching graphics, pungent opinion pieces, news presentations that seamlessly blend propaganda with reportage, and a general dumbing down of issues so that the least inquisitive mind can grasp them in all their simplicity. There has never BEEN anything like Fox News, at least not in this country. There have been equivalents in the USSR and other countries, but not here.Greenwald isn't Michael Moore. He's not as reckless and not as entertaining. The film is about the subject, not about its maker. And it's deadly serious, without stunts or jokes, except insofar as the snippets of commentary from Fox news readers are jokes in themselves.There is almost a kind of Gresham's law at work in the news industry, in which dumb news drives out more demanding analysis and understanding. If we hear several times a day that Kerry "flip flops", we know all we need to know about the candidate. He's a flip flopper. We don't need to know the context. We don't even have to know what he's flip flopped on or why. It's enough that we know he's indecisive and deceitful. Who wouldn't buy into a message like that? It goes down like a draught of Pepto-Bismol.The film ends on a kind of up-beat note. We can put an end to this desecration of a respected profession by becoming activists. But can we? Do we really want to? An Ipsos Poll two years ago showed that the vast majority of Fox Viewers, more than 70 percent, still believed that Saddam had close ties with al Qa'eda. (Compared to about 5 percent of PBS/NPR viewers.) A majority also thought that Saddam had WMDs at the time of the invasion. The opportunity to live in such a world of Biblical good and evil, where our every action is the right one, is seductive. I don't know if we can break Murdoch's increasing monopoly of the news media -- short of electing another trust buster like Teddy Roosevelt. (He was a Republican too.)

Bryan Way I'll start by stating that I'm a 20 year old liberal Democrat who voted for Kerry. I'm also a film student at Temple University.The assembly of this documentary is haphazard at best. The cheesy 'PowerPoint' graphics that slog the film to a start are mind-numbingly terrible. Any clips of any show that is being put on display are often so short that just about any statement made can be taken out of context. Many of the people being interviewed seem useless to the piece as their 'expertise' on the subject matter is questionable at best.On the other side, there's a lot of people I hear talking about the liberal media. This is as real to me as Tom Cruise's relationship with Katie Holmes. Clinton got blasted just the same as Bush has, but it seems when the right finds out about any negative press, they cry out that the liberal media is brainwashing the American public. Newsflash: The liberal media is less apparent than the conservative media. Look at the prevalence of conservative radio alone. The worst press Bush gets is over his approval ratings, and it's hard to fake those. On Fox, certain words and phrases DO denote that their anchors and programs are right-wing. Trumpeting Bush's election win months before the election is a good start, but when one anchor utters (with 'Fair And Balanced' hovering in the background) "...If the unthinkable were to happen and Kerry gets elected..." the jig is up. Also, when O'Reilly tells the audience that anyone who doesn't agree with the war on Iraq is unamerican and should 'shut up', he certainly reveals his true colors.Regardless, this film is an indictment of Fox's 'Fair And Balanced' views, and that's what everyone should focus on. It's clear as this program progresses that Fox is an entirely conservative news network. If they came out and admitted it, or at least got rid of their 'Fair And Balanced' tag, everyone would be better off. As far as the information conveyed as a solid whole, this documentary succeeds in providing a wealth of information to back its points. You can't expect that it's going to be 'Fair And Balanced'. It's a documentary. In the first documentary (Nanook Of The North, 1922) director Flaherty did such things as making the Inuits use a harpoon to kill the walrus when they had been using rifles for years and when he accidentally burned his film, recreated some scenes by directing Nanook.