This was essay # 2 for the semester. It was a critique and the professor did not require additional sources. I haven't read it since getting it back but I believe the only "work" I mention is the documentary I am critiquing so, really, I don't think any citation was required. Still, I cited the documentary.

1. Wischnewsky 1
Louis Wischnewsky
English 100
Quirk
March 1, 2011
Foxy Gals and Foxy Criticism
With the Industrial Revolution, the United States saw a rapid increase in high school
graduation rates. To no surprise, a burst of newspaper power came with a more educated society.
Ironically, one particular company had an enormous market share of the newspaper industry.
William Randolph Hearst had such control of what news Americans ingested that today, 60 years
after his demise, his name is still widely recognized. Even if Hearst's companies were not the
only one delivering the news, his empire's reach certainly dictated what Americans would be
reading and talking about as other newspapers, trying to compete, reported on the same stories.
Hearst controlled the market at a time when foxy gals in high heels, like Audrey Hepburn and
Elizabeth Taylor, dominated the silver screen and men like Franklin Roosevelt and J. Edgar
Hoover were impervious to even the foxiest criticism.
Seemingly gone are the days of the foxy gal that hypnotized the handsome rich guy. Yet,
oddly enough, much of modern film is based on the same plots from the bygone era of
Shakespeare that the early film industry based the love stories of those foxy gals upon. But, just
as no one questioned the source of those silver screen plots, Hoover's eccentric parties, nor
Hearst's global news empire 90 years ago, no one is genuinely questioning news sources today.
Sadly, the critiques of politicians and news sources we do get are no more sly-as-a-fox in
composition than they were during the Hearst era.
“Outfoxed” is not a genuine expose of “the reporter making the news.” It fails to address
the alleged media bias that brought about the creation of the Fox network in the first place. The

2. Wischnewsky 2
documentary never does give an explanation of Fox's “monopoly” of the news market.
“Outfoxed” uses bad journalism to address Fox's “bad journalism.” The Fairness Doctrine seems
to apply when critics of Fox News want it to apply. And, frankly, there is an obvious disconnect
between mainstream journalists' reality and the message the audience is receiving from
mainstream news networks.
Denying bias exists in all forms of communication is to deny human nature. However, the
very nature of “Outfoxed” conveys that it is possible to deliver the news without bias. What's
more, the assertion goes further to imply that all other news outlets are able to deliver news
without prejudice. This is inferred since only one news outlet is questioned by the documentary.
Consider the history of the Big Three in news, though.
The most famous instance of a news outlet delivering a biased story was when Dan
Rather, blaming the story he delivered on the woman that produced the story, sat on American
television screens during the 2000 election and told a fantastic story of a candidate lying about
the candidate's military service. It turned out the story was fantastic for a reason. The supporting
documents had been contrived and “expert witnesses” had lied. CBS had no option, when this
instance of bias was so blatant, but to end its long relationship with Dan Rather.
That is not the only time there has been a show of bias by the “trustworthy” mainstream
news industry. During the early 1990s, there was the famous Dan Quayle potato incident. He had
been asked to spell the word potato. Potato with an “e” is, to this day, the most famous thing for
which the former senator and vice president is famous. Fast forward to today's “fair and
balanced” media and watch current vice president Joe Biden's repeated gaffes go practically
unnoticed. In representing a political party that is supposed to care about the weakest members of
American society, one of Biden's arguably most cruel blunders is hardly known. At a rally, Biden
had next to him a man in a wheelchair. After giving the disabled man praises, Biden carelessly

3. Wischnewsky 3
insisted the man “stand up” to accept the raucous applause from the admiring audience. Sure, it
is no “big fucking deal” that Biden is not as sly as a fox, but why does the mainstream media
make a big fucking deal only when a conservative has a mental lapse?
“Outfoxed” goes on to claim Fox News has some sort of monopoly on news. Nothing
could be further from the truth. The only statistic on this provided was that Fox is one of FIVE
major networks. Having 1/5th of the market, 20%, is a suddenly a monopoly! If someone wants to
blame Fox for having 20% of the market share, maybe they need to go look at the messages
delivered by the other four networks. During the recent financial crisis, anyone that blamed
Toyota for General Motors' bankruptcy was chastised and rightfully so. It was not Toyota's fault
they had a better products and better service quality than GM. There is no difference here. Fox
can no more be blamed for having a greater market share than Toyota can be blamed for General
Motors' bankruptcy.
One of the arguments in “Outfoxed” was that Fox's punch line, “Fair and Balanced” is
misleading. Maybe that argument could be made. But if the other networks could deliver on
honesty, surely they would capitalize on Fox's “lies.” At least one of them could have a
marketing moniker like, “MSNBC – where the truth is always the scale.” The reason why none
of the other news outlets take on such slogans is simple: because none of the other four networks
are delivering on fairness and balance either. That is also the reason no one has successfully sued
Fox for “false advertising.” This documentary was unable to deliver the evidence to win a claim
against Fox, just as Fox's competitors have yet to do. A foxy way to beat out your critics is to
give them something they cannot argue.
There is nothing foxy about what comes next in “Outfoxed.” Not only did the film take
literary license with the term, “anonymous source,” it is laughable how the cinematography
focused on recording and editing machines as countless “anonymous sources” made claims

4. Wischnewsky 4
against the Fox network. The Watergate scandal demonstrated that sometimes keeping a source
unnamed has a genuine, much needed purpose. Unfortunately, reporters have come to rely on the
investigative tool. Nary a news story published or aired today comes without an “unnamed
source.” The significance of this is pretty obvious: whether the source is “anonymous,” “an
unnamed source,” or “some people,” where is the difference? This documentary infers that Fox
is making up the claims of “some people.” During the documentary's montage of “some
peoples”, one is tempted to roll his eyes just as much as every person from Fox is shown rolling
their eyes as they stated, “some people.” Sure, Fox stars might be making up a source, no one
knows. No one knows whether or not the numerous voices on those editing machines were the
voice of the “Outfoxed” producer, either. “Outfoxed” can try to be sly like a fox, but that alone is
not going to help the film outfox a fox.
Further along in this debacle, a formerly foxy gal talks about the Fairness Doctrine. There
are two aspects of the Fairness Doctrine to consider in relation to “Outfoxed.” According to the
producers of “Outfoxed,” both sides of an issue should get equal time to argue their point in
every medium. Then there is the more specific example where the formerly foxy gal talks about
how the Fairness Doctrine had been repealed before she ever realized it was no longer in effect.
Neither situation is very sly.
For not one second, much less half the documentary, did anyone give Fox News space for
rebuttal. To conservatives, this is no surprise. The purpose of the Fairness Doctrine is to take
away half the time conservative voices have to speak, pure and simple. Recently, MSNBC
changed its slogan to “Lean Forward,” admittedly by MSNBC, to reflect a “progressive” bias to
news. This could be taken as a response to Fox's, “Fair and Balanced,” but that is not what it is.
Rather, it is an admission, finally, of what MSNBC has been doing all along. There has not been
any other major changes at MSNBC, and certainly no ground-breaking personnel changes.

5. Wischnewsky 5
Magically MSNBC is only now going to have a progressive, liberal lean to what is reported.
There is a disconnect between what mainstream media news organizations see as great
journalism and reality. Consider comments on the Fairness Doctrine coming from Chellie
Pingree, president of Common Cause, a left-leaning, nonprofit advocacy group. She stated that
while she had been a candidate for political office, she could not recall the number of times
constituents asked her why she had not been given equal time “on TV” (note, she does not
specify Fox News – because Fox News did not exist during the period she describes). Pingree
says that, “for years” she did not even realize the Fairness Doctrine “had been lost during the
Reagan era.” This is very interesting considering she was an elected politician during the Reagan
era. Perhaps the reason she never had cause to question whether the doctrine was still in effect
was because its absence benefited her as a Democratic politician. More than anything, though,
one has to wonder how much a home builder would be trusted if he stated in an interview, “I had
no earthly idea asbestos had been outlawed from use in housing construction.” Does her
comment reflect a professional that stays on top of all the information that affects her profession?
No.
A hundred years ago, no one questioned whether or not William Randolph Hearst's
domination of American newspapers was a monopoly that could be giving American's skewed
messages. Did the fact that one out four Americans were getting their news from one source help
Roosevelt win four presidential elections? Has the dominance of three or four networks skewed
Americans to prefer one political party over another? Those questions are critical to any debate
about media bias. Instead, “Outfoxed” takes a chance to question the status quo and turns it into
something else entirely. Media bias at large is ignored. The matter of market share is
misrepresented and blamed on something Fox does not control. That amounts to bad journalism
on the part of “Outfoxed” at a level even the Fairness Doctrine could not address. All things

6. Wischnewsky 6
considered, nothing has changed much over the last one hundred years. Foxy gals in high heels
have moved from the silver screen to the local news, but there's still no foxy criticism of the
government or the media it sponsors.

7. Wischnewsky 7
Works Cited
Outfoxed. Dir. Robert Greenwald. Ryko Distribution. 2004. DVD.