MovieChat Forums > Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004) Discussion > Outfoxed, a Michael Moore style 'documen...

Outfoxed, a Michael Moore style 'documentary'

posted 19 years ago by teamgs3se
45 replies | jump to latest

I hate to be harsh, but if you got your opinion on Fox News (or the American Media) from this movie solely, your a fool. This movie uses the same Michael Moore style tactics that just hurt a legitimate argument. An argument can be made that Fox News slants to the right, (it's a fact that they have more conservatives than liberal commentators) but when this movie uses edits and out of context clips from Fox, it's credibility goes down zero. If I use the same techniques Robert Greenwald used, I could make Fox News into a liberal news channel! In fact, I'm confident enough to make my own rebuttal to this movie. All I'm asking for is an honest movie that tries to prove Fox News' conservative bias, Outfoxed is not it.

Anyway, many of the Fox News clips they used, I ACTUALLY SAW LIVE! Some of the clips they showed that were supposedly proving Fox News' bias were just laughable. Like Sean Hannity joking with Susan Estrich (a fox liberal regular) about Alan Colmes. I couldn't believe they tried to use that as more evidence of bias, when it was obviouly a joke.

This Jeremy Glick interview *beep* needs to get put to *beep* rest. I love how they edit out the part of the interview where Glick insults O'Reilly on the 9/11 families (which is what makes him snap). Instead they have Glick himself paraphasing what O'Reilly said. Also, people need to understand Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, he isn't a *beep* straight news anchor. HE GIVES OPINION AND ANALYSIS, he isn't a Rather, Brokaw or Jennings.

I could provide more examples, go into more detail and I can list liberals who work on Fox, but I want to see responses.

[–] lgron000 19 years ago

Nobody gets their opinion of Fox News soley from this documentary. Everyone already knows that Fox is a conservative channel, Outfoxed was simply a tool for rallying opposition to it. No self-respecting documentary maker would waste their time trying to prove the blatantly obvious, and if you'd considered the motivations of the filmmaker, you would've realised this beforehand.

[–] lovelywackadoo 19 years ago

No self respecting "documentary maker" would waste their time with the facts? If a documentary skews reality it is no longer a documentary it is a propaganda film. The only thing to realize beforehand is that liberals lie whenever it is convenient (which is extremely often), and that medias that are not as liberally biased at CNN or the BBC are labeled conservative by fanatical democrats.

[–] jfk99 19 years ago

We never sold arms to Iran and we never will again. -Ronald Reagan

I knew nothing about the Watergate hotel breakin -Richard Nixon

I never had sexual relations with that woman -Bill Clinton

Etc. Etc. All politicians lie or distort the facts to a certain extent - especially in the middle of a scandal. It is part of the job description. Get over the whole dems lie more than reps and vice versa.

<<insert witty comment>>

[–] Malickfan86 19 years ago

CNN has a liberal bias? Now what purpose would that serve the heads of Time Warner Corp.? Yankees need to understand that all of their primary television news sources, and many of their print sources as well, have a political bias. Michael Moore advocates that all Yankees should look to Canada's CBC or the BBC for their news. Corporately-owned news media defeats the purpose of journalism. NBC, FOX and CNN all have a conservative bias.

FOX's is obvious, of course. If you wonder about NBC, look into General Electric's overseas investments. War contracts make up a large sum of their profit margin. Why would they criticize the war in Iraq? That would cause a loss of support, which would result in jeopardizing the war, which may end GE's profits. For CNN, the evidence lies within the presentation of the stories.

Now why is it that every story is presented in such a manner as to scare the public? Why is it that CNN has never reported on the hundreds of thousands of deaths of Iraqi civilians by American soldiers? Why is it that the only time CNN reports conflict on the Gaza strip the results are deaths of Jews and never Palestinians? That doesn't sound very liberal to me. Fear causes support for a political administration, who in turn can return favours and more importantly, contracts. In addition, the more afraid one becomes, the more they will watch CNN and the more money Time Warner will make.

War is big business in the U.S. No one wants to miss out.

"The horror, the horror." - Colonel Kurtz, "Apocalypse Now"

[–] jaxeed 19 years ago

I don’t base my opinion of FoxNew on Outfoxed alone. As a media student I did watch FoxNews with great interest, before Outfoxed was even through pre-production. Why? Because FoxNews represents what any serious media analyst could call a freak show, with all the big “no no’s” of the news media being exploited to the full. We’re not only talking extensive use of positively and negatively loaded words, but a conscious choice to lead an audience’s opinion by letting emphasis always rest on one set of arguments, never really allowing for the balance they claim to have.

It’s really not a cent less then outrages that a channel this unscrupulous and with such an obvious agenda can turn the biggest and highest rated news network in USA. Last I read about the ratings of the news networks in US, apparently FoxNews has approximately 3 times the rating of CNN, which comes second on the chart. This is highly uncommon in the case of competitive commercial television channels, as the margins use to be a lot less at the top. One can’t help but think that Americans tend to choose the easy way i.e. dumbed down tabloid news that makes life easy by making all the choices for you, welcoming easy to grasp opinions not necessarily based on ones own independent thinking.

One time period I did study FoxNews quite closely was right after the 9/11 attacks, and the question on everyone’s minds where what to do now and how to react. FoxNews had a very clear and unmistakable message in this period - “bomb Afghanistan”. Any well formulated or well thought through arguments against such a choice was purposefully either broken off or never given the chance to air, while the arguments of those pro-bombing was repeated seemingly endlessly. I was dazzled that they could do something like that without getting into trouble, or be dismissed by the audience itself as one-dimensional representation.

This was also my first encounter with the famous Bill O’Reilly, whom seems to have perfected this art of breaking people off before anything meaningful with trenchancy is said. What he did by inviting guests in the studio, was obviously merely exploiting his position as an authority figure to the max. It was nothing less then jawdroppingly idiotic to watch this in the name of “news debate / commentary”. Anyone with a relevant and strong argument against the bombing would simply be broken off by O’Reilly’s shouting before the argument really got the chance to make anyone ponder weather or not the argument was valid. It may be as it may about him being a “commentator” rather then an “anchor”, though however, he is completely and utterly exploiting his place of authority prime time on FoxNews.

So no, Outfoxed did not shape my opinion of FoxNews, but did reveille even more telling elements of the networks construction that I wouldn’t have thought possible if it wasn’t so glaringly obvious. The memos for example – the idea in itself would probably be dismissed by any serious news network long before ever being executed, as such a ridiculous enforcement would keep any independently thinking journalists tied, ensuring that everyone is dancing to one tune being anything but “Fair and Balanced”.

I would be laughing if this was a minor news network with minimal ratings, but being USA’s number 1 source for news, this is nothing less then scary.

[–] kinghereafter 19 years ago

No this documentary did not shape my opinion of FNN but it did educate me on how to spot b.s. I actually watch FNN every now and then, mainly because it is what the t.v. at the gym is stuck on, and I do recall seeing firsthand how FNN magically connected fluctuations in the stockmarket with fluctations in the presidential polls during the Bush-Kerry campaign. I also remember hearing the phrase, "some people might say", several times during FNN "news" broadcasts, that's just a way to interject an opinion. I think it is a futile argument to present this documentary as some sort of "liberal hatchet job" because anybody can watch OUTFOXED, then watch Fox News Network and see the propaganda machinations presented in OUTFOXED at unabashedly at work. Whenever somebody tells me that he or she prefers FNN I automatically know what side of the political spectrum they are on and if FNN truly was "fair and balanced" I would not be able to do that.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mr_Ram 19 years ago

TEAM, your points about Michael Moore and the OUTFOXED editing techniques are, sadly, right-on.

I used to work for Fox, and enjoyed watching Fox News after 9/11. Watching that channel after the Attacks got me fired up as an American. It was all very rah-rah. But eventually I grew tired of their style, their definite right slant (I am an Independent) and began searching for something truly balanced.

But back to your point. Robert Greenwald's OUTFOXED is no better than Fox News itself. This movie isn't really a documentary on media (despite Greenwald's asertion otherwise) as much as it is an attack on the Fox News style (an attack that can be justified.) Greenwald raises great points and important issues that need, that deserve, that must be studied in a more fair, dare I say balanced?, approach. ALL News outlets should be monitored; a more public system of checks and balances should be established. But here there are no "man-on-the-street" interviews or points-of-view; no obvious attempt to interview current members of the Fox News team; no graphical breakdown that shows the reporting tendencies of ALL the major news outlets. Further, the entire team of "volunteers" Greenwald hires to monitor Fox News are left-leaning politicos.

The irony is, (and probably the reason this movie didn't generate a large revenue stream), OUTFOXED is also under the "Fox affect". Greenwald created a movie that, in essence, is propaganda towards a point-of-view.

So as a documentary, OUTFOXED is weak. As entertainment, I enjoyed laughing at Fox New's expense.

[–] politik426 19 years ago

FYI, the techniqes used in this film and in a Moore documentary are very different. And those of you who say that Fox News isn't conservative are morons. It absolutely is. Every radio station, tv station and newspaper reporter has their own bias that will get through in their coverage. Its impossible to hide. I accept that some news outlets are conservative, and some are liberal. You need both or else your living in a totalitarian state. Those of you who swear that its "Fair and Balanced" are incredibly easily led sheep looking to be told what to believe rather than find out youself. The only difference is that fox only hires conservatives or very weak liberals.

[–] Mr_Ram 19 years ago

POLITIK, explain how Michael Moore's "techniques" are "very different"??

[–] politik426 19 years ago

A Moore documentary, especially Fahrenheit 9/11, is filmed to be simply propaganda. He even said it was an anti-Bush propaganda film. It uses images of Moore helplessly trying to interview people who don't give him real answers. He is the star of his films. Outfoxed tells the story of the channel. Its very similar to "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room". Moore's film is more focused on entertaining and stunning the audience. It does what propaganda is supposed to do: use imagery to provoke a strong audience responce. People cried, clapped, laughed, and angrily screamed at the screen in the opening weekend showing I saw of Fahrenheit 9/11. Outfoxed tells the story and provides information. The emotional response depends on how intelligent you are, and to what extent you understand what the film discusses.

[–] Mr_Ram 19 years ago

I agree that Moore's Farenheit 9/11 is propaganda...of a documentary kind...but so is Outfoxed. Neither program offers it's opposition the chance to clearly state it's case. Remember, Outfoxed never shows an interview with somebody defending Fox News. And like Moore so artfully crafted his view of the Bush Administration, Greenwald edited Fox News clips to overstate the Republican agenda.

As documentaries, both are at fault for manipulating the medium. Neither is a "true" documentary although both are entertaining and somewhat educational (if not enlightening). The sad thing is both programs address important topics but use "shock value" over legitimacy to drive their points home, and ultimately make a difference.

[–] jaxeed 19 years ago

I'd like to butt in on thisone, if nobody minds. :o)

There is a distinct difference between documentaries and news which seem to have been forgotten in this little debate here. Documentaries are not extended news stories, even if the argument in a documentary often builds on a fundament of facts. Documentaries have always been a proponent of a conclusion, and balance in a documentary is not necessarily required. This has simply to do with the different approach a documentary maker has to his work in comparison to a news journalist. The basic construction of a documentary is very different from a news story. Early on in pre-production of a documentary an argument or message is defined as the primary aim of the work. Usually this message or argument is there to challenge the general public point of view, and shed light on aspects few might have considered and by this spark debate around the issue. Most documentary makers seek to challenge the audience point of view, not merely confirm what they already believe. If a documentary maker chooses to keep things open for individual conclusions, this is a choice not a requirement. This is how documentaries have always been, and to pull in terms like “propaganda” here isn’t very relevant.

In the case of FoxNews, it is VERY relevant to pull in terms like propaganda, because this network CLAIMS to be “fair and balanced”, but is nothing of that sort. They are propounding one particular set of ideologies, but keeps claiming they are merely injecting a “balance”, which what they call “the liberal media (meaning all other media)” does not contain. They also work under the banner of being “news”, which IS required to be as unbiast as possible and let the audience make up their own opinions, though this is not what is really happening on FoxNews is it?

I’m a documentary maker myself, and I agree that Outfoxed would have benefited from having a representative for FoxNews speak to camera, defending the networks reputation. Though, considering the low budged production this is, I have no trouble understanding why this represented a challenge. It would not be an easy task to get a representative for FoxNews to speak to Greenwald’s camera. Considering that 3 of the interviewees chose to remain anonymous, it might also be rather damaging to whoever agreed to appear. However, it doesn’t seem like Greenwald is unaware of this lack, as he attempts compensating for this by using Murdock’s own defense in court, and various clips from the networks own broadcast showing the “journalists” defending themselves – and somewhat ridiculed.

[–] Mr_Ram 19 years ago

JAX, points taken. I, too, dabble in the art of documentary creation. Each producer/director/writer/editor has decisions to make about the tone, point and production methods of their piece. I choose the school which promotes diversified fact/opinion to make a point and leave the overly-edited soundbites and images to those filmmakers looking for a quick, emotional hit. To live is to breathe, an in and out process, a two-way street. Every documentary, in my humble opinion, should reflect life. Is one method better, or more acceptable, than the other? We'll leave that to the audience to decide.

I enjoyed both Farenheit 9/11 and Outfoxed but still cringe at their methods. I think of how much more important and effective they would have been if they were less biased towards their prey. Both films failed to invigorate their audiences enough to warrant social change. That change may have come with a more balanced assessment of the facts.

[–] lovelywackadoo 19 years ago

Damn, I've never heard "propaganda" described in such a wonderful light, politik. It's interesting to know that people with considerably less power than dictators also find propaganda so very useful.

I do agree with you about Outfoxed. Your level of appreciation for the film is correlative to your intelligence, because the movie provides information, not all of which is correct.

[–] rrebenstorf 19 years ago

Do you have an example of incorrect information in this film? I see claims of "lies" and "distortions" all over this message board -- and no specific examples from the film to support the claims.

As far as editing is concerned, not only the counter-arguments are left out of the presentation. The film only presents 8 or 9 of the Moody Memos -- but over 30 are pubically available for perusal. So if you complain about editing, you will have to explain why the film leaves out evidence in support of its thesis.

[–] timberlax 18 years ago

no obvious attempt to interview current members of the Fox News team

Maybe because they would get FIRED for talking to a liberal filmmaker? Didn't you notice the whole "anonymous" with all the former employees? Also, what is there for their side to say that isn't already known? I mean we see Murdoch say some stuff on how he feels FOX News Corp is making the highest profits and that is pretty obvious.

[–] retspan-1 16 years ago

Editing techniques is irrelevant. I can watch OUTFOXED and then go to FNN and see for myself. I can verify its points for myself. I cannot fly to Cuba and visit hospitals.

[–] vincentpricetheraven 14 years ago

As usual, people seem to miss the point. Michael Moore's films/documentaries (whatever you want to call them) DO NOT aim to be balanced. The whole point is that they highlight major issues affecting the US and then give evidence to support the critical side of the argument. OUTFOXED does the same thing. It has not been created to give a two-sided argument. It does not need to. The point is Fox News is full of b.s. I am not from America but I can see Fox News every night and it's the same b.s. all the time.

The whole idea of these films/documentaries are to highlight the bad side so I don't know why ppl come on here and say "Michael Moore is biased and full of ****". Of course he's biased. He's not full of **** though and that's where a lot of the US' problems lie. Can't admit or see the blatant problems throughout the country and the country's media.

"Hi Lloyd. A little slow tonight, isn't it?"

[–] donjuanfer 19 years ago

The big thing to have in mind is that the whole purpose of the movie is to let you see the bias on Fox News, and it accomplishes it. That was the director's intention. Fox News is biased, period.
It is true that it would be great to see someone address the same issues in every news outlet that there is in the US, because every corporation has their own interests and biases. I stopped watching American network news long ago, because they hide information from the public, but that is the way this government is...keeping everyone under control by shaping their minds and telling them what to think instead of giving the right information and letting people think on their own. And whatever movie shows a piece of this hits the nail on its head. That's why I liked Outfoxed, which yeah, doesn't show a counter argument, but it does educate the viewer on how media protects its interests, and there's too many to be protected.....land of freedom....yeah right...

[–] tommyc-2 19 years ago

I'm really surprised at the various perceptions people have about what a documentary is. This issue moved to the forefront when Fahrenheit 9/11 was released, and Hannity and the gang were quick to dismiss it as a "mockumentary" or something other than a real documentary.

With all due respect to some of the previous postings, there is no wrong way to make a documentary unless the maker fails to validate his/her point. It is completely unnecessary to provide a counter view, since the documentary maker assumes that the viewer ALREADY KNOWS the counter view, and the maker wishes to provide a balance.

One example I heard during the heat of this argument was about a Jewish documentary on the holocaust. You might expect the focus of the film to be on the horrific things that occurred, but you wouldn't expect a Jewish documentary maker to speak well of the Nazis and their excellent record keeping techniques. The point of a documentary is for the maker to get his/her point across. Someone else has probably already given the other side of the story, often presented as "the truth", which is quite possibly the thing that inspired the documentary to begin with.

Just to be sure, I looked up "documentary" on Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"Fact-based film that depicts actual events and persons.

"Documentaries can deal with scientific or educational topics, can be a form of journalism or social commentary, or can be a conduit for propaganda or personal expression."

For this reason, I have no problem with Moore, Greenwald, or any other documentary makers. They made their points well. It's up to someone else to disprove or provide a counter point. Moreover, it's important to remember that we view these films by choice. None of the aforementioned films were presented on any network under the banner of "news coverage". They were creations of opinion, and marketed as such.

This was certainly not the case with the documentary, ""Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal". This film, produced by an anti-Kerry group, was shown two weeks before the 2004 general election on stations owned by Sinclair Broadcasting.

Sinclair is a right-wing media conglomerate that owns the largest chain of local TV stations in the US. Many of these stations did not want to air the program, but were forced to do so by Sinclair executives, under the guise of actual news. Indeed, Jon Leiberman, Sinclair's chief political reporter was fired when he objected to his company attempting to label such a one-sided documentary as "news". I totally agree with him.

Although I didn't see it, I can't argue the points made in "Stolen", nor can I argue the filmmaker's right to produce it. My problem is that it was being presented as "news". While Sinclair and Faux News are two entirely different networks, Sinclair clearly validated the fears from "Outfoxed" by their actions. This is where we should be focusing our attention.

[–] lovelywackadoo 19 years ago

But you can't really expect to be taken seriously as a documentor adressing biased news when u do it so in a biased light. Sort of defeats the purpose, you know?

[–] afeigel8 19 years ago

"An argument can be made that Fox News slants to the right, (it's a fact that they have more conservatives than liberal commentators) but when this movie uses edits and out of context clips from Fox, it's credibility goes down zero."

Ok teamgs3se, let me break it down for you. I am a fence sitter who tends to vote Republican more often than not. That said, Fox's assertion that they are "fair and balanced" is an aggregious lie. Here's my liberal versus conservative tally for Fox personalities and regular guests (keep in mind I avoid this network like the plague, so I may forget a few):

CONSERVATIVE
Bill O'Reilly
Sean Hannity
Brit Hume
Zell Miller
Laura Ingraham
Ann Coulter
Dick Morris

LIBERAL
Alan Colmes
Greta van Sustern
Dick Morris

All of the conservatives are outspoken, strong personalities. Alan Colmes can't even get a word in edgewise on his own show. Greta van Sustern's opinions are few and far between. Finally, there's Dick Morris. I love how they put this guy on as a liberal voice, just because he was an adviser for Clinton. It is obvious to anyone who bothers to check that he is an unabashed conservative, check out his books if you think I'm lying. There you have it. I would like Fox a whole lot more if their slogan was, "Conservative news for your world" or something like that. Since it is not, this station is and will remain (probably forever) a joke to anyone with an unobjective viewpoint on news.

[–] jharting 19 years ago

I'm sorry but you are fooling yhourself if you really think that this movie had taken video clips out of context to propagandize it's viewers. Outfoxed is one of the most thourough documentaries that states a thesis and backs it up with facts. It painstakingly goes out of it's way to put every quote and shot into context. Even the clip you referred to where hannity was joking with Estritch and Colmes was clearly a light moment on the show that made the point that the "liberals" on the show are rather dosile... Get it?!?!?

Further, I know everyone is going to hate this... But the same is true of farenheight 911. Micheal Moore had solid facts and truth presented in a well researched manner. He had documents!!! He showed the ties. All I can say is that Right wing talk show people (Rush and all his wannabe's) say something over and over and over. IE: liberal Media, Micheal moore Hates America, The radical left, elite liberals.. blah blah blah. Those techniques work on weak minded people. Read Orwell... it is almost ripped from Orwell's writings. If you speak a lie enough it becomes the truth.

Lie's and the lying liars is a great example of a well researched masterpiece that provides undeniable facts. Unfortunately facts and truth mean little to the brainwashed.

Bad example of documentary... Supersize Me. Loved it, but used bad techniques.

One more very important thing about thinking for yourself. I am not stuck in a box defined by someone else. IE Conservative, republican, Liberal Democrat. I believe in smaller Government smaller taxes, I am anti-abortion, against homosexual marriage, believe in property rights (within reason). I am a Christian. I believe ousting the Taliban was the right thing to do. I believe Clinton Lied. I also believe in Global warming, am against corporate corruption, am against the war in Iraq, think privatizing social security is a bad idea, AND FOX NEWS IS BIASED to a degree beyond any media outlet that claims to be a "news channel" (possible exception: NY Times).

I teach Media/ Communications courses and stress discernment at a University, have spent 8 years in the broadcast industry and was on the air live when 9/11 happened. I pay attention. I love my country deeply. And I understand better than most selective processing.

I could go on, and on. But I will stop with this: Nasty Political discourse is tearing America apart... united we stand divided we fall.

[–] samsan_lee 19 years ago

" Nasty Political discourse is tearing America apart... united we stand divided we fall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

look no further than "the Divided State"
a film chronicling a Utah universities attempt to bar
Michael Moore for coming on campus to speak.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wayneski 19 years ago

fox news is crap,
if you yourself cannot see that there are numerous instances of murdoch and company warping the news. you are a fool. you are joining in the bush bots mantra and goose stepping. i know some of the editing cuts werent perfect, but the point was

1) to show bias, subtle and OVERT

2) that fox news is not news

3) that free thought is under attack and endangered.

millions of us saw fox news. its was catchy, like the film showed. fox news is designed more like a magazine show than news show. like that hollywood crap e-entertainment show. is hannity bantering and counting down that bush is the next president not enough for you? what is that then? i was wondering how cooperative the right wing news was and now i now. thats why the airwaves was filled with neo pundits yelling "flip flop" ,"kerry the corpse", etc.

there is a line that what is news and what is propaganda, you can pick and choose what you want, but taken as a sum- it cannot be denied.

O'Reilly is a pathetic bully, he reminds me of the power trippin cops in my town.
dont agree with the message or dissension- take a beatin'

IF HE IS A *beep* OPINION COMMENTATOR WHAT IS HE DOIN ON A NEWS CAST STATION?
he is a psyopath who is a reactionary in the worst way. tellin people to shutup?
who the hell does he think he is? not everyone is afraid of you oreilly. there are plenty of us here who can snap your neck back to your ankles. anyhow,
so much for no spin huh?

[–] BillTucker1975 19 years ago

I hate liberals because it's always
" We must destroy all Republicans and we must do whatever it takes "
In all the attacking were is there plan to save the planet
they don't have one, there plan is to get Bush out of office and what do they do then if they get him out of office, the republicans will still be the larger group in Washington. Liberals will never get it. Does anyone think the Republicans will just give up if Bush is gone.

[–] wayneski 19 years ago

no we dont think republicans will give up if Bush is gone. unfortunately, the democrats have been hijacked as well. Bush has done exactly what the coporate and banking interest have planned all along. more massive debt, more dissension among americans. what is Bush's plan to save the planet?
corporate welfare, pollution, voting irregularity, war?
we are on dangerous grounds my friend. America has lost its sovereignty
,we just haven't realized it yet. why is war a constant cycle? why is the economy a constant cycle? why does our national debt grow with each cycle? the "truth" is self-evident, but hard to accept. we have been sold out my friend, by both sides, and all sides (media,institutions,etc). what is one lapdog compared to another?
LIBERTY must be restored.

[–] BillTucker1975 19 years ago

Can you prove this?????????????????????????

[–] iamthesavior 18 years ago

i think the most convincing part of the movie was the test results they showed near the end of what fox news viewers believe is reality. (WMD's in Iraq and so forth) Thats a non-bias test they took and the results are straight numbers and facts about what the viewers believe. I still cant see how that would be bias or anything. And that pretty much proves the point that fox doesnt report things as much as tell you things that may or maynot be true

i work in a record store.