Only 48 hours up and running and already two letters have flooded in; one is from the New York Times!

Regarding our coverage of "Outfoxed":
Turns out that the Robert Greenwald who has created the Fox News slamfest is apparently the same genius who directed one of the absolute worst movies of all time: Xanadu. Not to mention the immortal classic, Flatbed Annie and Sweetiepie: Lady Truckers. This is just too much --CS, Dallas

Regarding our entry "Now You See It, Now You Don't":
Fox's claim that I gave them only 24 hours to respond is false. I gave Fox 72 hours to respond and I have the emails to prove it. A real news operation wouldn't have a problem with that kind of a deadline. Their decision not to get back to me was the result of either bureaucratic incompetence or PR calculation. --Robert S Boynton [Mr Boynton is the author of the New York Times article about "Outfoxed"]

We are very thankful for Mr Boynton's comments. We have no way of knowing what the time frame was for the notice, whether it was mid-week or spanned a weekend, or who exactly is telling the truth about whether it was 24 or 72 hours. There are some things we do know, however. For one, Mr Boynton knew about the film months ago, but apparently agreed not to ask Fox about it at the time because the producers were concerned that there might be lawsuits over the use of purloined footage. So the prestigious New York Times agreed to enter into a conspiracy to aid and abet the unauthorized use of Fox's copyrighted footage.

It's time to play "Let's Assume" once again. Let's assume that he did give Fox 72 hours to respond. Was Fox shown a copy of the film? Were they able to see what was edited out and what wasn't? Was Fox permitted to see all the memos? Or was Fox supposed to respond to Mr Boynton's questions without ever being permitted to face their accusers and view the evidence? Is this 72-hour rule the policy of the New York Times? If you publish charges against someone, they have 72 hours to respond or we let 'em have it with both barrels? Of course a "real news operation" (does anyone detect just a slight hint of, I hate to say it, bias in Mr Boynton's turn of phrase?) can respond to any criticisms within 72 hours. For example, the NY Times. Oops. Bad example.

Through the four lengthy pages of Mr Boynton's article, there is exactly zero challenging, or even questioning, of the film's premise or specifics. For a respected journalist Mr Boynton is suprisingly uncurious. He quotes the memos the producers wanted him to quote (helpfully characterizing them as a "stinging blow"), but ignores the other 30 memos that paint a different picture. Did he ask to see the complete takes of the segments where anchors' comments were snipped so as to make it appear they were giving an opinion, when in fact they were quoting someone else (i.e., reporting)? Or did he just willingly swallow whatever was fed him? This is important, because if Mr Boynton had acted more like a reporter instead of a publicity agent, and done a little investigating and research ("the heart of journalism", according to Carl Kolchak), he would have produced a more balanced, insightful piece, rendering a response from Fox less imperative.

But that wasn't the plan. The New York Times ran dozens of articles on Air America, a tiny radio network with a handful of listeners. They promoted Michael Moore's latest production with generous publicity that money could never buy. And now, it's no surprise that their next PR project was "Outfoxed".

I only wonder one thing. Michael Wilson's film Michael Moore Hates America is coming this summer. Small independent filmmaker, driven by politics, bucking the trend, working bleary-eyed into the night--what a story! Will it get a big, four-page, totally uncritical puff piece in the New York Times? Perhaps Mr Boynton is already working on it, and in his unique fashion keeping it secret from the "target" until 72 hours before publication.

Right.