Yesterday's NYT magazine reported on the making of "Outfoxed," a new documentary that blasts Fox for its conservative take on the news. Today, Fox pissed on the Times article at the Ritz Carlton, at the end of "Outfoxed" director Robert Greenwald's press conference. [Ed. Note: this introduction has been clarified — the media people got me all persnickered with "actual events" and shit. The devil mixes lies with the truth!] Our intrepid intern Neel Shah reports.

Amidst a sea of 20 news cameras and 75 some-odd white people, one conspicuously out-of-place Indian kid broke in through the back door of the Ritz Carlton to catch the press conference of Robert Greenwald's "Outfoxed," a purportedly fair and balanced analysis of Republican bias on Fox News. The movie was funded by the hippies at MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress. It should be noted, though, that they made me sit on the floor. Coincidence that I was the only minority in the room? I think not).

In any case, before discussing the flick, Greenwald rambled on for a good 10 minutes on how an independent media is, like, totally important in society, less we end up a totalitarian state in which "ranting, raving, and an emphasis on cheap news" will replace actual journalism. Not that we know anything about the latter, but evidently Greenwald thinks that real reporting isn t really hot in America these days because the suckers who subscribe to its rhetoric don't make any goddman money. Shocking. Who would have thought that the average Joe is more likely to drop 4 bucks on US Weekly than on Atlantic Monthly?

Greenwald then proceeded to wow us with facts on how biased Fox News really is (83% of their partisan guests are Republicans! They regularly alter copy to make the war in Iraq more palatable! Special Report's Brit Hume and Bill O Reilly hate gays and liberals!), before showing some clips from his film and hosting a question and answer session with three of the Fox News whistleblowers he featured. This was all very well and groundbreaking if you have absolutely no prior knowledge on how the Murdoch Machine operates. But assuming you do, you re not gonna come out of this flick any the wiser (that is, if you ever get the chance to see it: right now, the distribution plan is to have it shown at "house parties" across the countries. Whaaa? House parties? I bet those American Progress dudes throw fucking killer keggers!)

Is it really shocking to find out that certain Fox brass required that newswriters refer to Marines as "sharpshooters" instead of "snipers" to make them sound more cuddly? Or that the same execs take certain reporters off of event coverage for asking questions they deem too hard hitting? Or that some employees felt a little too constrained by Fox s "Big Brother" tactics of allegedly monitoring e-mails (like every other media company doesn't reserve the right to read all company email)? Or that this was all done while claiming to be a bastion of "fair and balanced" news? Not particularly.

Nor is Greenwald's case strengthened by the fact that he didn't even attempt to interview Fox News execs to get their take on the matter. In fact, when a Fox News reporter asked why this was, there was an awkard silence, followed by Greenwald's response that he didn't really think it necessary, and that he didn t want to engage Team Murdoch in a legal battle. Pussy.

The verdict? Fox really, really wants Bush to win, and they host a jerk-off contest over that (Republican) party line in the sand in the quest for joint world domination. But did you really need a $300K film to tell you this?