Countdown

Home > Interviews > Robert Greenwald

Robert Greenwald

Robert Greenwald is a filmmaker and political activist. He has been the director and producer of several documentary films, including Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism, Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers, and Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, as well as the feature film Steal This Movie. His company, Brave New Films, has also produced Fox Attacks, a website that is critical of Fox News Channel.

Alicia Shepard interviewed Greenwald on September 18, 2007.

I was hoping you might just begin with talking about how you got interested in investigating Fox News.
I got interested when I began the movie Outfoxed. I had never really been a watcher, a connoisseur, or somebody who let Fox ruin their day each day, prior to working on the film. But several people had suggested when we were discussing the media how important it was to really look at them and show what’s going on. The only way to do that, of course, is using the medium they communicate in.

So that was my introduction. We did the movie. I think it was very helpful in rebranding Fox and getting people to talk about them for the first time. It was kind of this secret where every journalist in the world knew that they were not news. Anybody with a brain knew it.

Really?

Yes. There had not been a legitimate way to say it before then in any substantive fashion. So we gave people a tool. And the tool was the movie, and the data, and the research, and the memos, and the studies, and the former Fox employees. I mean, none of that had ever been done before. So that was my introduction.

When did you start?

It came out the summer of the ’04 elections. So it was pretty quick. I think it was about six or nine months before then.

So how you got started on investigating was just that someone had made a suggestion to you?

I finished Uncovered: [The War on Iraq], the first documentary I had done, and was talking with various friends and colleagues, people in the progressive universe. I actually think it may have been John Podesta and Wes Boyd who suggested it to me.

I did watch Outfoxed. I am wondering, how influential do you think they are today?

Well, we are continuing with our Fox Attacks [website]. We just went out with [a new piece on that site] today. I think that we certainly saw with Swift Boats, where [Fox was] incredibly influential. The Swift Boat story would have died its appropriate death had Fox not kept it on the air day after day and kept pounding on it. Their big influence is not the couple of hundred thousand people over 95 years old who watch it. It’s the fact that the other news organizations have, in the past, been a nation of follow-the-leader and are intimidated. That’s why we did the Outfoxed movie. And that’s why we continue the Fox Attacks, to continue to make it clear to reputable, responsible journalists. Sometimes you agree with them, sometimes you don’t. But Fox plays by a different set of rules.

Do you think it has made a difference? Do you think they do still play by a separate set of rules?

Oh, totally. Did you see the piece we went out with today? Did you see the Fox attacks the environment; Fox attacks black America; Fox attacks Obama, constantly. 

What role do you think they will play in the 2008 presidential election?

Well, it’s going to be interesting, because we are getting to them. We are hearing consistently from friends and backdoor channels and all kinds of ways. Remember, we defeated them twice, also. We defeated them on the Nevada debate. And Roger Ailes [the president of Fox News Channel] was personally involved. We defeated them on the Congressional Black Caucus debate. Roger Ailes personally was involved. So they are definitely concerned. The question is: Will they change? Do they want to change?

The economics continue to work against them, the ratings are lower, the audience demographic is older and older, and the advertisers pay less and less money. It’s not clear whether they will continue to just do what they are doing or, in an environment that’s increasingly hostile, economically and politically to them, will there be any change, and can they change?

We are going to keep pushing very hard so that any responsible journalist or political expert or even people who just pride themselves on knowing the news will be very clear. Even like the analysis of the [General David] Petraeus stuff. That’s just insane, having eight people pro-, and one person raising questions. It’s just insane.

Let me get back to the debates. You said that Roger Ailes was involved. How was he involved in a way that he isn’t normally involved?

Well, a couple of ways. One is, he put out the press release announcing the Nevada debate. Now when is the last time you have seen Roger Ailes announce a piece of programming? Totally calculated, and smart by the way, had we not beat them — a strategic move. The reason he did it was very clear: It was a way of trying to pretend they are news by putting on one hour of Democrats debating each other. They were going to use that all year long to say, “We are, in fact, a legitimate news organization.”

So first he put out the announcement. Secondly, we know he was trying to hold it together from people in the Nevada and Democratic world. Then on the Congressional Black [Caucus] Institute, first of all, Fox gives them money. Second of all, there have been various newspaper stories — I was not there — but Ailes personally went to plead the case and to try to make the deal that, again, we were able to ultimately stop.

Ailes went to the CBC to personally make the case?

Yes.

Do you know with whom?

You would have to Google it; there were stories at the time about who he went to.

OK. I thought I had pretty much looked at most of those stories.

There was definitely [a story]. I don’t know those players. I don’t know if it was [Bernie] Thompson; I don’t like to guess. But there were at least two or three stories. Now they may have fed on each other. They may have all been the same source. But I know they definitely referred to that.

But they did sponsor a debate four years ago. So did you think that lent them legitimacy, I mean a Democratic debate?

No.

But you are saying that gives them a public-relations tool?

Yes. When they did that debate a while ago, they were not under as much attack as they are now. The “emperor wears no clothes” has been made very clear. And by the way, my position is, I have no problem with their having strong opinions. My only problem is that they are pretending to be a news organization.

And you think they get away with that — I mean with being considered a news organization?

Face it: Yes, they do get away with it.

Well, do you think the public sees them as a legitimate news organization?

I don’t know. I try not to guess. I am sure there is some data on that. But the fact that they can get credentials at the Democratic [National] Convention to be a news organization, the fact that they are one of the pool cameras covering it, I don’t think it should be the case. But it is.

You don’t think what should be the case? That they get credentials to be pool reporters?

Yes. Definitely not. They are not a news organization.

Do you draw a distinction at all between their news programs that Shepard Smith does, and the [Bill] O’Reilly and [Sean] Hannity opinion shows?

I don’t, because they don’t. Back when we were doing Outfoxed, they would go up and back. You would see the people first expressing opinion, and then on a news show, and then they would go back to opinion. So they mix and match it really cleverly. I give them a lot of credit for that, by the way. But they, by design, have turned news into opinion, opinion into news. They make no clear distinction. They put up no real barriers. The news shows, in terms of which stories they cover, who they have on, and the point of view of the news shows, are in some ways worse than the so-called opinion shows.

From everything that I have read, it appears that the mainstream press sees the news shows as legitimate. But the opinion shows are so long-lived and popular and get so much press attention that people make a connection.

Well, they are absolutely wrong about the news shows. [We have done] analysis of the guests they have on the news shows. First of all, the right-versus-left proportion — we did one study back when we did the movie — it was crazy percentages, or self-identified Democrats, self-identified Republicans. It was crazy on the news shows, number one.

And dramatically different than CNN or MSNBC?

Hugely different. It was also the stories they don’t cover. Every network covered the Democrats’ rebuttal to [George W.] Bush except Fox News.

Well, they ran it. They covered it, but the other networks actually ran it.

You cannot make a case that their news is legitimate compared to the other news. You just can’t. You can like it. It’s certainly entertaining. But I would be hard-pressed to use factual evidence that the shows do what CNN does.

You mentioned that they might be having financial problems. Can you elaborate on that?

Well, they are not going to go broke. Rupert Murdoch has a few dollars. Fox News is advertiser-driven. The advertisers pay based upon audience. It’s audience size, and more key, it’s audience demographics, which means what is the complexity of the audience. [Age] 19 to 29 is the key audience. Fox’s average is, I think, 62 or 63. So from an advertiser point of view, that’s not an audience that they are going to be interested in reaching or pay much money to.

We were talking about that Fox [News Channel] is advertiser-driven. And that you thought the audience size and the demographic was being reduced. You said that [19] to 29 is the key audience. Is that for any network?

Yes. Again, I don’t have the data in front of me, but some of them even tap out a little area, like they want to stop at 24. The theory with advertisers is that it’s not anymore the quantity of the audience, but it’s the quality of the audience. In their minds, younger is better, because they haven’t locked into buying patterns yet. That’s the theory behind it. Now it may or may not be accurate, but anytime you see the weekly ratings announced by the networks, it will often be led by what’s called by the shorthand “demo,” or the demographics. That’s the reason for it, because that’s how it’s related to money.

Now again, with Fox, it’s slightly different. That’s the problem for them. What they have been able to do — and I don’t know if any of this matters for your purposes — they have charged the local cable operators a higher fee for carrying Fox News. And that’s how they have been protecting some of the financial aspects, or that’s how they have actually been making profit, depending on how you book keep it. [There are] lots of different ways to look at it. Murdoch was on Wall Street yesterday claiming that Fox News is a $10 billion asset, which I don’t think too many people would agree with. But that’s his statement.

Where did he say that?

There was a press conference on Wall Street yesterday.

And he said Fox News was a $10 billion asset?

I think so. Look in Daily Variety, I think, today. I believe that’s where I saw it.

Now you just said that Fox charges the cable network to carry the show.

Right.

Is there a way that we would be able to document that?

Yes. Again, Google it. There was a pretty contentious negotiation as to how much they would be charging the local cable operators. And a fair amount of it was in print. I don’t know if Jeff Chester has stuff on it. But it went public in the negotiation.

So you are saying that’s how they compensate for any loss of advertising?

Well, yeah, that allows them. Again, Murdoch has openly subsidized them for five years at hundreds of millions of dollars. And it was very clear. Then, over time, as they have gotten their numbers up, even though it’s not desirable from an advertiser point of view, it’s a good number that’s probably desirable from a local cable point of view.

Do you have any idea how much they will be spending on the 2008 campaign? Or how they are going to approach the campaign?

Well, we know, by history, they don’t spend money on reporters or news investigation. I mean, they give Bill O’Reilly, I don’t know, $3 [million], $4 [million], $5 million a year, and Hannity millions of dollars a year. They don’t put money into having reporters go out and do stories like news organizations.

I just wondered, in the research that you have been continuing to do, whether you had any insight into how they are going to handle the 2008 presidential election.

Well, we don’t have any numbers, because they have, as far as I know, never been public with how they allocate those resources. But the indications are it will be the same pattern, which is money, essentially, to commentators, and no money to reporters. There doesn’t seem to be any change in that, and there has been no indication that they are going to change that pattern.

How is it that Fox News can successfully cloak itself in this mantle of objectivity?

Well, they did a very smart thing. They called themselves a news organization. And therefore, the other news organizations, by policy, are very, very, very hesitant to be critical of them. First of all, it’s a small club at an elite level of ownership. Secondly, even within the sort of middle level, for working journalists and editors who are both smart and intelligent, there is this sense — and we went through this big-time with Outfoxed — of enormous discomfort that they be perceived as criticizing a competitor. Because the real news organizations play by these rules.

Why? What is it about them that would legitimize them as a real news organization?

They said they were.

Just because they said they were?

Yeah. They said they were. That’s where the sort of balance thing becomes a problem. It’s not about accuracy; it’s about balance. They say they are, therefore we treat them as they are. And then maybe occasionally we’ll have somebody say they are not.

So you think they are able to come across as being objective simply because they say they are?

Correct. I mean they’ve said it for many years. I hope you saw the piece, “Fox Attacks Obama.” That was a big, big change where CNN actually went out and researched a Fox story and beat the crap out of them with it. We [will] look back on it, I am absolutely certain, as a major turning point.

The Obama story back in January?

Yeah.

Did you find in your research any examples of Fox News employees giving money to political candidates?

Well, yes. But it’s irrelevant. I mean, they make a big deal out of the fact that Peter Chernin, who is like third down from Rupert, is in fact a Democrat. He’ll do a fundraiser, and he’ll give money. But it doesn’t change the policies of Fox News in any way. The policies of Fox News are very clear and consistent no matter what any individual, other than Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes, may do.

And how would you best describe the policy?

The policy is pro-Republican Party in power in the United States. It’s not a conservative ideology. It’s a Republican power ideology. And that, also, by the way, is consistent with Murdoch’s worldwide pattern. It’s very smart. I mean, think about it for a minute. It’s not that he aligns himself, per se, with a political party, even though he is clearly conservative. But he buys access to the party in power, which therefore comes back and accrues to him in all kinds of benefits to where he measures himself, which is on money, and more money, and more acquisitions, and more money. He did that in Great Britain. He did it in Australia.

Does that mean that he is not a person of strong ideological conviction, but a smart businessman?

Well, no, he is both. He has very strong ideological convictions, and he is a businessman. This is a guy who made a deal with Communist China to shut down the BBC, because he was buying access. Need I say more?

Did you try to interview Murdoch for Outfoxed?

We didn’t for Outfoxed, because we had to work in secrecy because of fair-use issues. We have subsequently made efforts and they never responded. In fact, I am proudly blacklisted from going on Fox. I’ll get a call from a low-level booker on something about putting me on, for like Wal-Mart or war profiteering. I said: “You might want to go back and check. I don’t want to get you fired over this.”

And they will check and come back and say “sorry.”

“Sorry, we are going in a different direction.”

Did you try to interview Roger Ailes?

We did at one point, I believe. But you never hear back from them.

What is your take on his influence on Fox? I mean, is the influence coming from Rupert Murdoch or is it coming from Roger Ailes?

Well, they share the same ideological vision. They are both hard-core, right-wing advocates. So you don’t need to have a daily meeting to work out what you should do or not do. Very clearly, in the beginning, they made a decision: They were going to create a network with a right-wing, conservative, Republican Party bias. And they do that consistently. Ailes is very important. The guy right under him, John Moody, is even more important on a day-to-day basis. 

The other thing I wanted to talk to you about was the friendship between Roger Ailes and Rudy Giuliani. What did you discover about that? I know recently The New York Times had a piece on it. But were you able to find out much about that?

We haven’t gone there. Because when we did Outfoxed, it didn’t matter. On the work we are doing on Rudy Giuliani, we are focusing on the 9/11 stuff, not on anything else. I mean, we have only seen probably what you have seen. The number of times that Rudy has been on [with] Hannity is like off the charts. So he has support, and then Hannity did a fundraiser for him, which I am sure you guys will get into.

Tell me why you think it would be wrong for an opinionator, if you want to call Hannity that, to hold a fundraiser.

I don’t. I just think the fact that they try to keep it quiet, and then he has him on shows numerous times without disclosure, I think is a problem. You’ll notice every time he has Rudy on and gives a softball interview, says how great he is, he never says, “Oh, I am supporting him for president — I have held a fundraiser for him.” He may as well say, “This interview brought to you by the Giuliani campaign.”

Are they ever “mean” to any of these Republican candidates? Have you seen that?

Yeah, Ron Paul. They beat the hell out of him. And they are taking a lot of crap. They were terrible to him on the debates. There is a lot of stuff going around the web now. People are furious. We even got letters from Republicans — one of the few times — saying, “We see what you mean,” because of the way Fox beat up on Paul.

The last thing I wanted to ask you is, are there any other examples of their influence in terms of politics?

Well, there are a lot, Swift Boats being one. I think we talked about that a little bit, where the Swift Boat story was not going anyplace until they kept it on the air for two to three days is one area. The other, and maybe most critically, was — and again, we have this in Outfoxed — the fact that they called the election for Bush. Then the other networks, to their eternal shame, followed them. It changed the way everybody looked at this story, as Bush had won and [Al] Gore was being a sore loser. I think that’s really, really significant and radically underlooked in the course of time. And who was it? It was a cousin of Bush who was working for Fox at a high level.

Yeah, John Ellis.

Yeah. That’s a very, very big deal.

What do you think this upcoming election? Have you seen any examples, other than favoring Rudy Giuliani?

Well, they continue to be obscene about the trashing of Democrats. You saw the Petraeus piece that went out and some of the comments there. And it just continues. I mean, if you accept the fact that they are there to help elect the current Republican group, they are fine. If you say that they are supposed to be news, then it’s a joke.

And again, you don’t draw a distinction between the actual news shows, as they call them news, and the opinion shows of O’Reilly and Hannity & Colmes.

We do not, because as I said, they do not. They will mix it up. They will have news pieces on those shows. They will have O’Reilly sometimes doing the news. They will have commentators go on their shows. Again, it’s important, because that’s a little bit of credibility they now try to hold on to. But you would need to be a detective to figure out which is news and which is opinion, number one.

Number two, even on the so-called news shows, I mean look at the Petraeus thing. This was news. They were bringing you the Petraeus hearings. But eight out of the nine opinions were in favor of the escalation. And I don’t know that they have done anything recently, but FAIR [Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a media watchdog organization] did this study for us on the guests who come on the so-called news shows. Well actually, I think there was one recently, too. And it’s very different from the other networks.

You said you thought there was a study done recently? Was it Media Matters [for America]?

I think Media Matters did one. On the Sunday shows, maybe.

So do they do anything well?

Yes. They are incredibly entertaining. I mean that in a good sense. They are very easy to the eye. They have done terrific work with the graphics. Look, I wish we had a version of that on the progressive side. We don’t have anything as good or as sophisticated, not that one would lie by calling it news. But they find a way to involve people. O’Reilly and Hannity are excellent communicators.

I think O’Reilly is probably even on more of a downhill than we think. Somehow the combination of his arrogance and meanness and age is starting to come through. But for years he has been a terrific communicator, because it comes from belief. It comes from passion. They are not saying anything they don’t believe, for the most part. I think that’s a positive. They found — and this goes to Roger Ailes — a terrific way to reenergize news.

What do you mean?

Well, by making it shorter; making graphics; having the music; cutting away quicker; all of that stuff. That side of it is very good.

How has the influence been felt by the other networks in cable?

Part of it is bad, the dumbing-down, which other networks do. Then part of it is the networks, just as we talked about, just copy them. They say, “Oh, if I have a right-winger on, too, then my ratings will go up,” which is not working out. [MSNBC’s] Keith Olbermann is the biggest increase in ratings of anybody in the last year. But you see it in the dumbing-down. You see it in the effort to make every story less substantive. There was one of these surveys: I think Fox gave 10 times more coverage to Paris Hilton than the Iraq war last month, or the month before. So there is a dumbing-down.

Well, it would be interesting to see how things play out if there is a second O.J. [Simpson] trial. Do you think politics will then fall by the wayside?

That’s the other part of the news thing, by the way, that’s very important. The stories they choose to cover and what they choose not to cover is as important as the bias. So they won’t cover the Republican scandals. You’ll see almost never a word about it. So, yeah, they would be in heaven with O.J. And they would continue to do what they do, which is selectively choose news stories, as we saw in the memos, that support their ideological position.

You have paid attention during the Larry Craig stories. Did they ignore that?

I believe they did. Do you know the News Hounds? Go to [www.newshounds.us]. I think they have had posts on it. They are the best at following Fox day to day.

Do you feel that Fox News is good for our democracy?

No. I feel — what’s the polite way to call it — “Fox Entertainment” is fine. “The Fox Republican Channel” is fine. “Fox News” is very hurtful to democracy and accuracy. I think it’s [Robert] McChesney who said this way back when. He is absolutely right. News in a democracy is actually [more] important than in a totalitarian society, because people believe they are getting accurate and unbiased information. And they make their decisions based on that news. In a totalitarian society, they know it’s bullshit. So it actually has a deeper and more negative effect in a democracy than in other countries that don’t have democracy.

Do you foresee a day where there would be a progressive channel?

Well, I don’t think it will be on cable. I hope it’s going to be. I have had these conversations for five years. “Well, we need $1 billion to buy CBS.” But we are doing the short advocacy investigative videos now. And we are getting better numbers than some Fox shows already. And we have only been at it six months. So I think there is a huge future here. Obviously, I hope we are going to be able to play a role in that and continue to encourage progressives. Don’t sit around thinking how you are going to raise $1 billion to buy CBS. But go out and start using what Google paid $1 billion for and is free to all of us now. It’s called YouTube.